THE  INQUISITION 

A CRITICAL  AND  HISTORICAL 
STUDY  OF  THE  COERCIVE 
POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH 


BT 

E.  VACANDARD 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  SECOND  EDITION  BY 

BERTRAND  L.  CONWAY,  C.S.P. 


NEW  EDITION 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 

FOURTH  AVENUE  & 30TH  STREET,  NEW  YORK 
London,  Bombay,  Calcutta  and  Madras 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  HENRY  CARDINAL  NEWMAN,  Based  on  his  Private 
Journals  and  Correspondence.  By  Wilfrid  Ward.  With  15  Portraits  and 
Other  Illustrations.  2 vols.  8vo.  Pp.  654  + 627.  $9.00  net. 

Cheaper  Edition,  with  2 Frontispieces.  2 vols.  8vo.  $4.50  net. 

This  work  is  based  on  the  very  large  correspondence  of  Cardinal  Newman , col- 
lected for  publication  by  the  late  Father  Neville,  his  literary  executor.  Its  interest 
is  both  historical  and  psychological.  Historically  it  forms  a sequel  to  the  “Apologia." 
That  work  gave  the  story  of  Newman's  attempt  to  counteract  the  incoming  tide  of 
rationalistic  " liberalism " in  religious  thought  by  restoring  to  the  Church  of  England 
the  Catholic  beliefs  and  traditions  which  it  had  so  largely  lost. 

On  the  psychological  side  the  letters  reveal  a singularly  sensitive  and  complete 
mind  and  nature  in  one  whose  spiritual  aims  were  absolutely  single  and  simple. 
Both  on  the  historical  and  psychological  side  the  biographer  has  aimed  at  telling 
the  whole  story  quite  frankly  and  fully. 

“Will  rank  among  modern  biographical  masterpieces .” — Ecclesiastical 
Review. 

“A  great  contribution  both  to  religious  and  literary  biography." — Boston  Tran- 
script. 

“A  permanent  contribution  to  history  and  literature.  The  writer  stands  in  the 
first  rank  of  living  biographers;  and,  though  much  has  been  written  on  Newman , 
the  story  of  his  life  as  a Catholic  has  not  been  written  till  now." — The  Nation, 
-London. 

“ There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Ward  has  given  in  this  interesting  Life  a valuable- 
contribution  to  history." — America. 

CARDINAL  NEWMAN’S  WORKS. 

• A Descriptive  Price  List  of  the  various  Works  of  Cardinal  Newman  will  be 
sent  to  any  address  upon  request. 

INDEX  TO  THE  WORKS  OF  JOHN  HENRY  CARDINAL  NEWMAN. 
By  Joseph  Rickaby,  S.J.,  D.Sc.  (Oxon.).  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  viii  + 156. 
$1.75  net. 

The  author  claims  that  this  Index  be  tried  by  these  three  questions:  " Did  Newman 

say  this?"  “ Did  he  ever  unsay  it,  and  if  so,  where?”  "Are  there  any  notable 
sayings  of  his  not  brought  into  due  prominence?”  The  book  is  not  a Concordance: 
it  is  meant  to  be  a guide  to  Newman’s  thought,  to  the  changes  of  that  thought,  or, 
as  he  would  have  said,  to  the  "development"  which  his  thought  ran  through,  from 
the  first  public  utterances  of  the  Fellow  of  Oriel  to  the  last  words  of  the  aged  Priest 
of  the  Oratory.  In  later  life  he  republished  sundry  of  his  Anglican  works,  with 
notes  not  unfrequently  opposed  to  the  text. 

SERMON  NOTES  OF  JOHN  HENRY  CARDINAL  NEWMAN,  1849-78. 
Edited  by  Fathers  of  the  Birmingham  Oratory.  With  Portrait.  Crown 
8vo.  $1.75  net. 

Cardinal  Newman  left  behind  him  two  MS.  volumes  filled  with  notes  or  memo- 
randa of  Sermons  and  Catechetical  Instructions  delivered  by  him  during  the  years 
1847  to  187Q.  Thus  their  period  extends  from  his  return  from  England  after  his 
ordination  to  the  priesthood  in  Rome  to  the  time  when  he  was  summoned  to  Rome 
to  receive  the  Cardinalate.  Besides  their  utility  to  priests  and  teachers,  it  is  hoped 
that  the  notes  will  appeal  to  all  lovers  of  Newman's  writings.  Those  of  an  earlier 
date  are  especially  interesting.  They  introduce  the  reader  to  Newman  in  the  first 
days  of  his  Catholic  life,  settling  down  to  the  ordinary  duties  of  an  English  priest, 
and  instructing  a "Mixed  Congregation”  in  the  rudiments  of  Catholic  Doctrine. 

AN  INDEXED  SYNOPSIS  OF  CARDINAL  NEWMAN’S  "A  GRAMMAR 
OF  ASSENT.”  By  the  Rev.  John  J.  Toohey,  S.J.  Crown  8vo.  $1.20 
net. 

"A  summary  of  Newman's  arguments.  At  the  same  time  it  is  a sort  of  catalogue 
of  his  doctrines.  The  volume  demonstrates  its  worth  by  its  accuracy  and  fulness , 
thereby  immensely  enhancing  the  work  of  the  Cardinal  in  behalf  of  seekers  after 
truth." — The  Ecclesiastical  Review. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  & CO.,  NEW  YORK 


THE  INQUISITION 


IRibil  ©bstat. 


flmprtmatur. 


THOMAS  J.  SHAHAN,  S.T.D. 


4-JOHN  M.  FARLEY,  D.D., 

Archbishop  of  New  York. 


New  York,  June  24,  1907. 


THE  INQUISITION 

A CRITICAL  AND  HISTORICAL 
STUDY  OF  THE  COERCIVE 
POWER  OF  THE  CHURCH 


BY 

E.  VACANDARD 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  SECOND  EDITION  BY 

BERTRAND  L.  CONWAY,  C.S.P. 


NEW  EDITION 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 


FOURTH  AVENUE  & 30TH  STREET,  NEW  YORK 
London,  Bombay,  Calcutta  and  Madras 

1915 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
Bertrand  L.  Conway 


All  Rights  Reserved 


First  Edition,  February,  1908 
Reprinted,  May,  1908 

New  and  Cheaper  Edition,  September,  1915 


PREFACE 


There  are  very  few  Catholic  apologists  who  feel 
inclined  to  boast  of  the  annals  of  the  Inquisition.  The 
boldest  of  them  defend  this  institution  against  the 
attacks  of  modern  liberalism,  as  if  they  distrusted  the 
force  of  their  own  arguments.  Indeed  they  have 
hardly  answered  the  first  objection  of  their  opponents, 
when  they  instantly  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  Protes- 
tant and  Rationalistic  critics  of  the  Inquisition  have 
themselves  been  guilty  of  heinous  crimes.  “ Why,” 
they  ask,  “ do  you  denounce  our  Inquisition,  when 
you  are  responsible  for  Inquisitions  of  your  own?  ” 

No  good  can  be  accomplished  by  such  a false  method 
of  reasoning.  It  seems  practically  to  admit  that  the 
cause  of  the  Church  cannot  be  defended.  The  ac- 
cusation of  wrong-doing  made  against  the  enemies 
they  are  trying  to  reduce  to  silence  comes  back  with 
equal  force  against  the  friends  they  are  trying  to 
defend. 

It  does  not  follow  that  because  the  Inquisition  of 
Calvin  and  the  French  Revolutionists  merits  the  repro- 
bation of  mankind,  the  Inquisition  of  the  Catholic 
Church  must  needs  escape  all  censure.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  unfortunate  comparison  made  between  them 
naturally  leads  one  to  think  that  both  deserve  equal 
blame.  To  our  mind,  there  is  only  one  way  of  defend- 
ing the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  Middle 


VI 


PREFACE 


Ages  toward  the  Inquisition.  We  must  examine  and 
judge  this  institution  objectively,  from  the  stand- 
point of  morality,  justice,  and  religion,  instead  of  com- 
paring its  excesses  with  the  blameworthy  actions  of 
other  tribunals. 

No  historian  worthy  of  the  name  has  as  yet  under- 
taken to  treat  the  Inquisition  from  this  objective  stand- 
point. In  the  seventeenth  century,  a scholarly  priest, 
Jacques  Marsollier,  canon  of  the  Uzes,  published  at 
Cologne  (Paris),  in  1693,  a Histoire  de  V Inquisition  et 
de^son  Origine.  But  his  work,  as  a critic  has  pointed 
out,  is  “ not  so  much  a history  of  the  Inquisition,  as 
a thesis  written  with  a strong  Gallican  bias,  which 
details  with  evident  delight  the  cruelties  of  the  Holy 
Office.”  The  illustrations  are  taken  from  Philip  Lim- 
borch’s  Historia  Inquisitionis } 

Henry  Charles  Lea,  already  known  by  his  other 
works  on  religious  history,  published  in  New  York, 
in  1888,  three  large  volumes  entitled  A History  of 
the  Inquisition  of  the  Middle  Ages.  This  work  has 
received  as  a rule  a most  flattering  reception  at  the 
hands  of  the  European  press,  and  has  been  translated 
into  French.2  One  can  say  without  exaggeration  that 
it  is  “ the  most  extensive,  the  most  profound,  and  the 
most  thorough  history  of  the  Inquisition  that  we 
possess.”  3 

It  is  far,  however,  from  being  the  last  word  of 
historical  criticism.  And  I am  not  speaking  here  of 

1 Paul  Fredericq,  Historiography  de  V Inquisition,  p.  xiv. 
Introduction  to  the  French  translation  of  Lea’s  book  on  the 
Inquisition. 

2 Histoire  de  V Inquisition  au  moyen  dgey  Salomon  Reinach. 
Paris,  Fischbacher,  1900-1903. 

3 Paul  Fredericq,  loc,  cit.}  p,  xxiv. 


PREFACE 


Vll 


the  changes  in  detail  that  may  result  from  the  dis- 
covery of  new  documents.  We  have  plenty  of  material 
at  hand  to  enable  us  to  form  an  accurate  notion  of 
the  institution  itself.  Lea’s  judgment,  despite  evident 
signs  of  intellectual  honesty,  is  not  to  be  trusted. 
Honest  he  may  be,  but  impartial  never.  His  pen  too 
often  gives  way  to  his  prejudices  and  his  hatred  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  His  critical  judgment  is  sometimes 
gravely  at  fault.1 2 

Tanon,  the  president  of  the  Court  of  Cassation,  has 
proved  far  more  impartial  in  his  Histoire  des  Tribunaux 
de  VInquisition  en  France ? This  is  evidently  the 
work  of  a scholar,  who  possesses  a very  wide  and 
accurate  grasp  of  ecclesiastical  legislation.  He  is 
deeply  versed  in  the  secrets  of  both  the  canon  and  the 
civil  law.  However,  we  must  remember  that  his 
scope  is  limited.  He  has  of  set  purpose  omitted  every- 
thing that  happened  outside  of  France.  Besides  he  is 
more  concerned  with  the  legal  than  with  the  theo- 
logical aspect  of  the  Inquisition. 

On  the  whole,  the  history  of  the  Inquisition  is  still 
to  be  written.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  attempt  it; 
our  ambition  is  more  modest.  But  we  wish  to  picture 
this  institution  in  its  historical  setting,  to  show  how 
it  originated,  and  especially  to  indicate  its  relation  to 
the  Church’s  notion  of  the  coercive  power  prevalent 
in  the  Middle  Ages.  For,  as  Lea  himself  says:  “ The 
Inquisition  was  not  an  organization  arbitrarily  devised 
and  imposed  upon  the  judicial  system  of  Christendom 
by  the  ambition  or  fanaticism  of  the  Church.  It  was 

1 The  reader  may  gather  our  estimate  of  this  work  from  the 
various  criticisms  we  will  pass  upon  it  in  the  course  of  this  study. 

2 Paris,  1893. 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


rather  a natural — one  may  almost  say  an  inevitable — 
evolution  of  the  forces  at  work  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  no  one  can  rightly  appreciate  the  process 
of  its  development  and  the  results  of  its  activity,  with- 
out a somewhat  minute  consideration  of  the  factors 
controlling  the  minds  and  souls  of  men  during  the 
ages  which  laid  the  foundation  of  modern  civilization. 

We  must  also  go  back  further  than  the  thirteenth 
century  and  ascertain  how  the  coercive  power  which 
the  Church  finally  confided  to  the  Inquisition  de- 
veloped from  the  beginning.  Such  is  the  purpose  of 
the  present  work.  It  is  both  a critical  and  an  his- 
torical study.  We  intend  to  record  first  everything 
that  relates  to  the  suppression  of  heresy,  from  the 
origin  of  Christianity  up  to  the  Renaissance;  then  we 
will  see  whether  the  attitude  of  the  Church  toward 
heretics  can  not  only  be  explained,  but  defended. 

We  undertake  this  study  in  a spirit  of  absolute 
honesty  and  sincerity.  The  subject  is  undoubtedly  a 
most  delicate  one.  But  no  consideration  whatever 
should  prevent  our  studying  it  from  every  possible 
viewpoint.  Cardinal  Newman,  in  his  Historical 
Sketches,  speaks  of  “that  endemic  perennial  fidget 
which  possesses  certain  historians  about  giving  scandal. 
Facts  are  omitted  in  great  histories,  or  glosses  are  put 
upon  memorable  acts,  because  they  are  thought  not 
edifying,  whereas  of  all  scandals  such  omissions,  such 
glosses,  are  the  greatest.”  2 

A Catholic  apologist  fails  in  his  duty  to-day  if  he 
writes  merely  to  edify  the  faithful.  Granting  that  the 
history  of  the  Inquisition  will  reveal  things  we  never 


1 Preface,  p.  iii. 


2 Vol.  ii,  p.  231. 


PREFACE 


ix 


dreamed  of,  our  prejudices  must  not  prevent  an  honest 
facing  of  the  facts.  We  ought  to  dread  nothing  more 
than  the  reproach  that  we  are  afraid  of  the  truth. 
“ We  can  understand,”  says  Yves  Le  Querdec,1  “ why 
our  forefathers  did  not  wish  to  disturb  men’s  minds 
by  placing  before  them  certain  questions.  I believe 
they  were  wrong,  for  all  questions  that  can  be  pre- 
sented will  necessarily  be  presented  some  day  or  other. 
If  they  are  not  presented  fairly  by  those  who  possess 
the  true  solution,  or  who  honestly  look  for  it,  they  will 
be  by  their  enemies.  For  this  reason  we  think  that 
not  only  honesty  but  good  policy  require  us  to  tell 
the  world  all  the  facts.  . . .Everything  has  been  said, 
or  will  be  said  some  day.  . . . What  the  friends  of 
the  Church  will  not  mention  will  be  spread  broadcast 
by  her  enemies.  And  they  will  make  such  an  outcry 
over  their  discovery,  that  their  words  will  reach  the 
most  remote  corners  and  penetrate  the  deafest  ears. 
We  ought  not  to  be  afraid  to-day  of  the  light  of  truth; 
but  fear  rather  the  darkness  of  lies  and  errors.” 

In  a word,  the  best  method  of  apologetics  is  to  tell 
the  whole  truth.  In  our  mind,  apologetics  and  his- 
tory are  two  sisters,  with  the  same  device:  “ Ne  quid 
falsi  audeatj  ne  quid  veri  non  audeat  historia .”  2 

1 Univers,  June  2,  1906.  2 Cicero,  De  Oratore  ii,  15. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface v 

CHAPTER  I 

First  Period  (I-IV  Century)  : The  Epoch  of  the 
Persecutions. 

The  Teaching  of  St.  Paul  on  the  Suppression  of  Heretics.  1 

The  Teaching  of  Tertullian 2 

The  Teaching  of  Origen 3 

The  Teaching  of  St.  Cyprian 3 

The  Teaching  of  Lactantius 4 

Constantine,  Bishop  in  Externals 4 

The  Teaching  of  St.  Hilary 5 

CHAPTER  II 

Second  Period  (From  Valentinian  I to  Theodosius  II). 

The  Church  and  the  Criminal  Code  of  the 
Christian  Emperors  Against  Heresy. 

Imperial  Legislation  against  Heresy 7 

The  Attitude  of  St.  Augustine  towards  the  Manicheans . 9 

St.  Augustine  and  Dona tism 12 

The  Church  and  the  Priscillianists 17 

The  Early  Fathers  and  the  Death  Penalty 22 

CHAPTER  III 

Third  Period  (a.d.  1100-1250).  The  Revival  of  the 
Manichean  Heresies. 

Adoptianism  and  Predestinationism 24 

The  Manicheans  in  the  West 25 

Peter  of  Bruys 29 

Henry  of  Lausanne 30 


xi 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Arnold  of  Brescia 30 

Eon  de  PEtoile 31 

Views  of  this  Epoch  upon  the  Suppression  of  Heresy . . 32 

CHAPTER  IV 

Fourth  Period  (From  Gratian  to  Innocent  III).  The 
Influence  of  the  Canon  Law,  and  the  Revival 
of  the  Roman  Law. 

Executions  of  Heretics 39 

The  Death  Penalty  for  Heretics 41 

Legislation  of  Popes  Alexander  III  and  Lucius  III  and 

Frederic  Barbarossa  against  Heretics 43 

Legislation  of  Innocent  III 43 

The  First  Canonists 64 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Catharan  or  Albigensian  Heresy:  Its  Anti- 

Catholic  and  Anti-Social  Character. 

The  Origin  of  the  Catharan  Heresy 50 

Its  Progress 51 

It  Attacks  the  Hierarchy,  Dogmas,  and  Worship  of  the 

Catholic  Church 52 

It  Undermines  the  Authority  of  the  State 56 

The  Hierarchy  of  the  Cathari 58 

The  Convenenza 59 

The  Initiation  into  the  Sect 60 

Their  Customs 63 

Their  Horror  of  Marriage 66 

The  Endura  or  Suicide '.  70 

CHAPTER  VI 

Fifth  Period  (Gregory  IX  and  Frederic  II).  The 
Establishment  of  the  Monastic  Inquisition. 

Louis  VIII  and  Louis  IX ^ 75 

Legislation  of  Frederic  II  against  Heretics 76 

Gregory  IX  Abandons  Heretics  to  the  Secular  Arm. . . 78 

The  Establishment  of  the  Inquisition 83 


CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER  VII 

Sixth  Period.  Development  of  the  Inquisition. 
(Innocent  IV  and  the  Use  of  Torture.) 

PAGE 

The  Monastic  and  the  Episcopal  Inquisitions 97 

Experts  to  Aid  the  Inquisitors 99 

Ecclesiastical  Penalties 101 

The  Infliction  of  the  Death  Penalty 103 

The  Introduction  of  Torture 106 

CHAPTER  VIII 
Theologians,  Canonists  and  Casuists. 

Heresy  and  Crimes  Subject  to  the  Inquisition 115 

The  Procedure 119 

The  Use  of  Torture 121 

Theologians  Defend  the  Death  Penalty  for  Heresy.  . . . 123 

Canonists  Defend  the  Use  of  the  Stake 128 

The  Church’s  Responsibility  in  Inflicting  the  Death 
Penalty 128 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  Inquisition  in  Operation. 

Its  Field  of  Action 132 

The  Excessive  Cruelty  of  Inquisitors 133 

The  Penalty  of  Imprisonment 137 

The  Number  of  Heretics  Handed  Over  to  the  Secular 

Arm 143 

Confiscation 147 

The  auto-da-fe 150 

CHAPTER  X 

Criticism  of  the  Theory  and  Practice  of  the  In- 
quisition. 

Development  ofcdhe  Theory  on  the  Coercive  Power  of 

the  Church 152 

Intolerance  of  the  People 155 

Intolerance  of  Sovereigns 156 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

The  Church  and  Intolerance 158 

The  Theologians  and  Intolerance 158 

Appeal  to  the  Old  Testament 159 

England  and  the  Suppression  of  Heresy 160 

The  Calvinists  and  the  Suppression  of  Heresy 163 

Cruelty  of  the  Criminal  Code  in  the  Middle  Ages 165 

The  Spirit  of  the  Age  Explains  the  Cruelty  of  the  In- 
quisition  166 

Defects  in  the  Procedure 167 

Abuses  of  Antecedent  Imprisonment  and  Torture 169 

Heretics  who  were  also  Criminals 170 

Heresy  Punished  as  Such 172 

Should  the  Death  Penalty  be  Inflicted  upon  Heretics?.  174 

The  Responsibility  of  the  Church 177 

Abuses  of  the  Penalties  of  Confiscation  and  Exile 179 

The  Penitential  Character  of  Imprisonment 182 

The  Syllabus  and  the  Coercive  Power  of  the  Church . . 182 
Index 189 


THE  INQUISITION 


CHAPTER  I 
FIRST  PERIOD 


I-IV  Century 


The  Epoch  of  the  Persecutions 

St.  Paul  was  the  first  to  pronounce  a sentence  of 
condemnation  upon  heretics.  In  his  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy, he  writes:  “ Of  whom  is  Hymeneus  and  Alexander, 
whom  I have  delivered  up  to  Satan,  that  they  may 
learn  not  to  blaspheme.”  1 The  Apostle  is  evidently 
influenced  in  his  action  by  the  Gospel.  The  one-time 
Pharisee  no  longer  dreams  of  punishing  the  guilty  with 
the  severity  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  death  penalty 
of  stoning,  which  apostates  merited  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation,2 has  been  changed  into  a purely  spiritual 
penalty:  excommunication. 

1 1 Tim.  i.  20.  Cf.  Tit.  iii.  10-11.  “ A man  that  is  a heretic, 

after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  avoid,  knowing  that  he, 
that  is  such  an  one,  is  subverted,  and  sinneth,  being  condemned 
by  his  own  judgment.” 

2 Deut.  xiii.  6-9;  xvii.  1-6. 


1 


2 


THE  INQUISITION 


During  the  first  three  centuries,  as  long  as  the  era  of 
persecution  lasted,  the  early  Christians  never  thought 
of  using  any  force  save  the  force  of  argument  to  win 
back  their  dissident  brethren.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
that  obscure  passage  in  the  Adversus  Gnosticos  of  Ter- 
tullian,  in  which  he  speaks  of  “driving  heretics  (i.  e.,  by 
argument),  to  their  duty,  instead  of  trying  to  win 
them,  for  obstinacy  must  be  conquered,  not  coaxed.”  1 
In  this  work  he  is  trying  to  convince  the  Gnostics 
of  their  errors  from  various  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. But  he  never  invokes  the  death  penalty  against 
them.  On  the  contrary,  he  declares  that  no  practical 
Christian  can  be  an  executioner  or  jailer.  He  even 
goes  so  far  as  to  deny  the  right  of  any  disciple  of 
Christ  to  serve  in  the  army,  at  least  as  an  officer, 
“ because  the  duty  of  a military  commander  com- 
prises the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  a man’s  life, 
to  condemn,  to  put  in  chains,  to  imprison  and  to 
torture.”  2 

If  a Christian  has  no  right  to  use  physical  force, 
even  in  the  name  of  the  State,  he  is  all  the  more  bound 
not  to  use  it  against  his  dissenting  brethren  in  the 
name  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  a law  of  gentleness. 
Tertullian  was  a Montanist  when  he  wrote  this.  But 
although  he  wrote  most  bitterly  against  the  Gnostics 
whom  he  detested,  he  always  protested  against  the 
use  of  brute  force  in  the  matter  of  religion.  “It  is 
a fundamental  human  right,”  he  says,  “ a privilege  of 
nature,  that  every  man  should  worship  according  to 
his  convictions.  It  is  assuredly  no  part  of  religion  to 

1 Adversus  Gnosticos  Scorpiacef  cap.  ii,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  ii, 
col.  125. 

2 De  Idololatria,  cap.  xvii,  P.  L.,  vol.  i,  col.  687. 


THE  INQUISITION 


3 


compel  religion.  It  must  be  embraced  freely,  and  not 
forced.”  1 These  words  prove  that  Tertullian  was  a 
strong  advocate  of  absolute  toleration. 

Origen  likewise  never  granted  Christians  the  right 
to  punish  those  who  denied  the  Gospel.  In  answer- 
ing Celsus,  who  had  brought  forward  certain  texts  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  decreed  the  death  penalty  for 
apostasy,  he  says:  “If  we  must  refer  briefly  to  the 
difference  between  the  law  given  to  the  Jews  of  old 
by  Moses,  and  the  law  laid  down  by  Christ  for  Chris- 
tians, we  would  state  that  it  is  impossible  to  harmonize 
the  legislation  of  Moses,  taken  literally,  with  the  call- 
ing of  the  Gentiles.  ...  For  Christians  cannot  slay 
their  enemies,  or  condemn,  as  Moses  commanded,  the 
contemners  of  the  law  to  be  put  to  death  by  burning 
or  stoning.”  2 

St.  Cyprian  also  repudiates  in  the  name  of  the 
Gospel  the  laws  of  the  Old  Testament  on  this  point. 
He  writes  as  follows:  “ God  commanded  that  those 
who  did  not  obey  his  priests  or  hearken  to  his  judges,3 
appointed  for  the  time,  should  be  slain.  Then  indeed 
they  were  slain  with  the  sword,  while  the  circumcision 
of  the  flesh  was  yet  in  force;  but  now  that  circum- 
cision has  begun  to  be  of  the  spirit  among  God’s 
faithful  servants,  the  proud  and  contumacious  are  slain 
with  the  sword  of  the  spirit  by  being  cast  out  of  the 
Church.”  4 

The  Bishop  of  Carthage,  who  was  greatly  troubled 
by  stubborn  schismatics,  and  men  who  violated  every 

1 Liber  ad  Scapulam , cap.  ii,  P.  L.,  vol  i,  col.  699 

2 Contra  Celsum , lib.  vii,  cap.  xxvi. 

3 Deut.  xvii.  12. 

4 Ep.  lxii,  ad  Pomponium,  n.  4,  P.  L.,  vol.  iii,  col.  371.  Cf. 
De  unitate  Ecclesioe , n.  17  seq.;  ibid.,  col.  513  seq. 


4 


THE  INQUISITION 


moral  principle  of  the  Gospel,  felt  that  the  greatest 
punishment  he  could  inflict  was  excommunication. 

When  Lactantius  wrote  his  Divince  Institutiones  in 
308,  he  was  too  greatly  impressed  by  the  outrages  of 
the  pagan  persecutions  not  to  protest  most  strongly 
against  the  use  of  force  in  matters  of  conscience.  He 
writes:  “ There  is  no  justification  for  violence  and 
injury,  for  religion  cannot  be  imposed  by  force.  It  is 
a matter  of  the  will,  which  must  be  influenced  by 
words,  not  by  blows.  . . . Why  then  do  they  rage, 
and  increase,  instead  of  lessening,  their  folly?  Torture 
and  piety  have  nothing  in  common;  there  is  no  union 
possible  between  truth  and  violence,  justice  and 
cruelty.1  ...  For  they  (the  persecutors)  are  aware 
that  there  is  nothing  among  men  more  excellent  than 
religion,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  defended  with  all 
one’s  might.  But  as  they  are  deceived  in  the  matter 
of  religion  itself,  so  also  are  they  in  the  manner  of  its 
defence.  For  religion  is  to  be  defended,  not  by  putting 
to  death,  but  by  dying;  not  by  cruelty  but  by  patient 
endurance;  not  by  crime  but  by  faith.  ...  If  you 
wish  to  defend  religion  by  bloodshed,  by  tortures  and 
by  crime,  you  no  longer  defend  it,  but  pollute  and 
profane  it.  For  nothing  is  so  much  a matter  of  free 
will  as  religion.”  2 

An  era  of  official  toleration  began  a few  years  later, 
when  Constantine  published  the  Edict  of  Milan  (313), 
which  placed  Christianity  and  Paganism  on  practically 
the  same  footing.  But  the  Emperor  did  not  always 
observe  this  law  of  toleration,  whereby  he  hoped  to 
restore  the  peace  of  the  Empire.  A convert  to  Chris- 

1 Of.  Pascal,  Lettre  provincialef  xii. 

2 Divin . Institute  lib.  v,  cap.  xx. 


THE  INQUISITION 


5 


tian  views  and  policy,  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  inter- 
fere in  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  quarrels  of  the 
day;  and  he  claimed  the  title  and  assumed  the  func- 
tions of  a Bishop  in  externals.  “ You  are  Bishops,  ” 
he  said  one  day,  addressing  a number  of  them,  “ whose 
jurisdiction  is  within  the  Church;  I also  am  a Bishop, 
ordained  by  God  to  oversee  whatever  is  external  to 
the  Church.”  1 This  assumption  of  power  frequently 
worked  positive  harm  to  the  Church,  although  Con- 
stantine always  pretended  to  further  her  interests. 

When  Arianism  began  to  make  converts  of  the 
Christian  emperors,  they  became  very  bitter  toward 
the  Catholic  bishops.  We  are  not  at  all  astonished, 
therefore,  that  one  of  the  victims  of  this  new  per- 
secution, St.  Hilary,  of  Poitiers,  expressly  repudiated 
and  condemned  this  regime  of  violence.  He  also  pro- 
claimed, in  the  name  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  the 
principle  of  religious  toleration.  He  deplored  the  fact 
that  men  in  his  day  believed  that  they  could  defend 
the  rights  of  God  and  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  by 
worldly  intrigue.  He  writes:  “I  ask  you  Bishops  to 
tell  me,  whose  favor  did  the  Apostles  seek  in  preaching 
the  Gospel,  and  on  whose  power  did  they  rely  to  preach 
Jesus  Christ?  To-day,  alas!  while  the  power  of  the 
State  enforces  divine  faith,  men  say  that  Christ  is 
powerless.  The  Church  threatens  exile  and  imprison- 
ment; she  in  whom  men  formerly  believed  while  in 
exile  and  prison,  now  wishes  to  make  men  believe  her  by 
force.  . . . She  is  now  exiling  the  very  priests  who  once 
spread  her  gospel.  What  a striking  contrast  between 
the  Church  of  the  past  and  the  Church  of  to-day.”  2 

1 Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini , lib.  iv,  cap.  xxiv. 

2 Liber  contra  Auxentium , cap.  iv. 


6 


THE  INQUISITION 


This  protest  is  the  outcry  of  a man  who  had  suffered 
from  the  intolerance  of  the  civil  power,  and  who  had 
learned  by  experience  how  even  a Christian  State  may 
hamper  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  and  hinder  the  true 
progress  of  the  Gospel. 

To  sum  up:  As  late  as  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  and  even  later,  all  the  Fathers  and  ecclesias- 
tical writers  who  discuss  the  question  of  toleration  are 
opposed  to  the  use  of  force.  To  a man  they  reject 
absolutely  the  death  penalty,  and  enunciate  that  prin- 
ciple which  was  to  prevail  in  the  Church  down  the 
centuries,  i.e .,  Ecclesia  abhorret  a sanguine 1 (the  Church 
has  a horror  of  bloodshed);  and  they  declare  faith 
must  be  absolutely  free,  and  conscience  a domain 
wherein  violence  must  never  enter.2 

The  stern  laws  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been 
abolished  by  the  New. 

1 Canons  of  Hippolytus , in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  no. 
74-75;  Duchesne,  Les  origines  du  culte  chretien , 2e  ed.,  p.  309; 
Lactantius,  Divin.  Institut.,  lib.  vi,  cap.  xx. 

2 Lactantius,  Divin.  Institut .,  lib.  v,  cap.  xx. 


CHAPTER  II 


SECOND  PERIOD 

From  Valentinian  I to  Theodosius  II 

The  Church  and  the  Criminal  Code  of  the  Chris- 
tian Emperors  against  Heresy 

Constantine  considered  himself  a bishop  in  ex- 
ternals. His  Christian  successors  inherited  this  title, 
and  acted  in  accordance  with  it.  One  of  them,  Theo- 
dosius II,  voiced  their  mind  when  he  said  that  “ the 
first  duty  of  the  imperial  majesty  was  to  protect  the 
true  religion,  whose  worship  was  intimately  connected 
with  the  prosperity  of  human  undertakings.”  1 

This  concept  of  the  State  implied  the  vigorous  pros- 
ecution of  heresy.  We  therefore  see  the  Christian  em- 
perors severely  punishing  all  those  who  denied  the 
orthodox  faith,  or  rather  their  own  faith,  which  they 
considered,  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

From  the  reign  of  Valentinian  I,  and  especially  from 
the  reign  of  Theodosius  I,  the  laws  against  heretics 
continued  to  increase  with  surprising  regularity.  As 
many  as  sixty-eight  were  enacted  in  fifty-seven 
years.  They  punished  every  form  of  heresy,  whether 
it  merely  differed  from  the  orthodox  faith  in  some 
minor  detail,  or  whether  it  resulted  in  a social  up- 

1 Theodosii  II,  Novella,  tit.  iii.  (438). 

7 


8 


THE  INQUISITION 


heaval.  The  penalties  differed  in  severity;  i.  e.,  exile, 
confiscation,  the  inability  to  transmit  property.  There 
were  different  degrees  of  exile;  from  Rome,  from  the 
cities,  from  the  Empire.  The  legislators  seemed  to 
think  that  some  sects  would  die  out  completely,  if  they 
were  limited  solely  to  country  places.  But  the  severer 
penalties,  like  the  death  penalty,  were  reserved  for 
those  heretics  who  were  disturbers  of  the  public  peace, 
v.  g.,  the  Manicheans  and  the  Donatists.  The  Mani- 
cheans,  with  their  dualistic  theories,  and  their  con- 
demnation of  marriage  and  its  consequences,  were 
regarded  as  enemies  of  the  State;  a law  of  428  treated 
them  as  criminals  “ who  had  reached  the  highest  degree 
of  rascality.” 

The  Donatists,  who  in  Africa  had  incited  the  mob 
of  Circumcelliones  to  destroy  the  Catholic  churches, 
had  thrown  that  part  of  the  Empire  into  the  utmost 
disorder.  The  State  could  not  regard  with  indifference 
such  an  armed  revolution.  Several  laws  were  passed, 
putting  the  Donatists  on  a par  with  the  Manicheans, 
and  in  one  instance  both  were  declared  guilty  of  the 
terrible  crime  of  treason.  But  the  death  penalty  was 
chiefly  confined  to  certain  sects  of  the  Manicheans. 
This  law  did  not  affect  private  opinions  (except  in  the 
case  of  the  Encratites,  the  Saccophori,  and  the  Hydro- 
parastatse),  but  only  those  who  openly  practiced  this 
heretical  cult.  The  State  did  not  claim  the  right  of 
entering  the  secret  recesses  of  a man’s  conscience. 
This  law  is  all  the  more  worthy  of  remark,  inasmuch 
as  Diocletian  had  legislated  more  severely  against  the 
Manicheans  in  his  Edict  of  287:  “We  thus  decree,” 
he  writes  Julianus,  “ against  these  men,  whose  doc- 
trines and  whose  magical  arts  you  have  made  known 


THE  INQUISITION 


9 


to  us:  the  leaders  are  to  be  burned  with  their  books, 
their  followers  are  to  be  put  to  death,  or  sent  to  the 
mines.”  In  comparison  with  such  a decree,  the  legis- 
lation of  the  Christian  Emperors  was  rather  moderate. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain  how  far  these 
laws  were  enforced  by  the  various  Emperors.  Besides, 
we  are  only  concerned  with  the  spirit  which  inspired 
them.  The  State  considered  itself  the  protector  of  the 
Church,  and  in  this  capacity  placed  its  sword  at  the 
service  of  the  orthodox  faith.  It  is  our  purpose  to  find 
out  what  the  churchman  of  the  day  thought  of  this 
attitude  of  the  State. 

The  religious  troubles  caused  chiefly  by  three 
heresies,  Manicheism,  Donatism,  and  Priscillianism, 
gave  them  ample  opportunity  of  expressing  their 
opinions. 


The  Manicheans,  driven  from  Rome  and  Milan, 
took  refuge  in  Africa.  It  must  be  admitted  that  many 
of  them  by  their  depravity  merited  the  full  severity 
of  the  law.  The  initiated,  or  the  elect , as  they  were 
called,  gave  themselves  up  to  unspeakable  crimes.  A 
number  of  them  on  being  arrested  at  Carthage  con- 
fessed immoral  practices  that  would  not  bear  repeti- 
tion, and  this  debauchery  was  not  peculiar  to  a few 
wicked  followers,  but  was  merely  the  carrying  out  of 
the  Manichean  ritual,  which  other  heretics  likewise 
admitted.1 

The  Church  in  Africa  was  not  at  all  severe  in  its 
general  treatment  of  the  sect.  St.  Augustine,  especially, 
never  called  upon  the  civil  power  to  suppress  it.  For 


1 Augustine,  De  hceresibus , Haeres,  46. 


r 


10 


THE  INQUISITION 


he  could  not  forget  that  he  himself  had  for  nine  years 
(373-382),  belonged  to  this  sect,  whose  doctrines  and 
practices  he  now  denounced.  He  writes  the  Mani- 
cheans:  “ Let  those  who  have  never  known  the 

troubles  of  a mind  in  search  of  the  truth  proceed 
against  you  with  vigor.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  do 
so,  because  for  years  I was  cruelly  tossed  about  by  your 
false  doctrines,  which  I advocated  and  defended  to  the 
best  of  my  ability.  I ought  to  bear  with  you  now’, 
as  men  bore  with  me  when  I blindly  accepted  your 
doctrines.”  1 All  he  did  was  to  hold  public  confer- 
ences with  their  leaders,  whose  arguments  he  had  no 
difficulty  in  refuting.2 

The  conversions  obtained  in  this  way  were  rather 
numerous,  even  if  all  were  not  equally  sincere.  All 
converts  from  the  sect  were  required,  like  their  suc- 
cessors, the  Cathari  of  the  Middle  Ages,  to  denounce 
their  brethren  by  name,  under  the  threat  of  being 
refused  the  pardon  which  their  formal  retraction 
merited.  This  denunciation  was  what  we  would  call 
to-day  “ a service  for  the  public  good.”  We,  however, 
know  of  no  case  in  which  the  Church  made  use  of  this 
information  to  punish  the  one  who  had  been  denounced. 


Donatism  (from  Donatus,  the  Bishop  of  Casae  Nigrae 
in  Numidia)  for  a time  caused  more  trouble  to  the 
Church  than  Manicheism.  It  was  more  of  a schism 
than  a heresy.  The  election  to  the  see  of  Carthage 
of  the  deacon  Caecilian,  who  was  accused  of  having 
handed  over  the  Scriptures  to  the  Roman  officials 

1 Contra  epistolam  Manichoei  quam  vocant  Fundamenti,  n.  2,  3. 

2 Cf.  Dom  Leclerc,  V AJrique  Chretienne , Paris,  1904,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  113-122. 


THE  INQUISITION 


11 


during  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  was  the  occa- 
sion of  the  schism.  Donatus  and  his  followers  wished 
this  nomination  annulled,  while  their  opponents  de- 
fended its  validity.  Accordingly,  two  councils  were 
held  to  decide  the  question,  one  at  Rome  (313),  the 
other  at  Arles  (314).  Both  decided  against  the 
Donatists;  they  at  once  appealed  to  the  Emperor, 
who  confirmed  the  decrees  of  the  two  councils  (316). 
The  schismatics  in  their  anger  rose  in  rebellion,  and  a 
number  of  them  known  as  Circumcelliones  went  about 
stirring  the  people  to  revolt.  But  neither  Constantine 
nor  his  successors  were  inclined  to  allow  armed  re- 
bellion to  go  unchallenged.  The  Donatists  were 
punished  to  the  full  extent  of  the  law.  They  had  been 
the  first,  remarks  St.  Augustine,  to  invoke  the  aid  of 
the  secular  arm.  “ They  met  with  the  same  fate  as 
the  accusers  of  Daniel;  the  lions  turned  against 
them.”  1 

We  need  not  linger  over  the  details  of  this  conflict, 
in  which  crimes  were  committed  on  both  sides.  The 
Donatists,  bitterly  prosecuted  by  the  State,  declared 
its  action  cruel  and  unjust.  St.  Optatus  thus  answers 
them:  “ Will  you  tell  me  that  it  is  not  lawful  to 
defend  the  rights  of  God  by  the  death  penalty?  . . . 
If  killing  is  an  evil,  the  guilty  ones  are  themselves  the 
cause  of  it.”  2 “It  is  impossible,”  you  say,  “ for  the 
State  to  inflict  the  death  penalty  in  the  name  of  God,” 
—But  was  it  not  in  Gocbs  name  that  Moses,3  Phinees,4 
and  Elias  5 put  to  death  the  worshipers  of  the  golden 


1 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  7. 

2 De  Schismate  Donatistarum , lib.  iii,  cap.  vi. 

3 Exod.  xxxii.  28. 

4 Numb.  xxv.  7-9. 

6 3 Kings  xviii.  40. 


12 


THE  INQUISITION 


calf,  and  the  apostates  of  the  Old  Law? — u These 
times  are  altogether  different, ” you  reply;  “ the  New 
Law  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Old.  Did  not 
Christ  forbid  St.  Peter  to  use  the  sword?”  1 Yes, 
undoubtedly,  but  Christ  came  to  suffer,  not  to  defend 
Himself.2  The  lot  of  Christians  is  different  from  that 
of  Christ. 

It  is  in  virtue,  therefore,  of  the  Old  Law  that  St. 
Optatus  defends  the  Stated  interference  in  religious 
questions,  and  its  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon 
heretics.  This  is  evidently  a different  teaching  from 
the  doctrine  of  toleration  held  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
preceding  age.  But  the  other  bishops  of  Africa  did 
not  share  his  views. 

In  his  dealings  with  the  Donatists,  St.  Augustine 
was  at  first  absolutely  tolerant,  as  he  had  been  with 
the  Manicheans.  He  thought  he  could  rely  upon  their 
good  faith,  and  conquer  their  prejudices  by  an  honest 
discussion.  “ We  have  no  intention,”  he  writes  to  a 
Donatist  bishop,  “ of  forcing  men  to  enter  our  com- 
munion against  their  will.  I am  desirous  that  the 
State  cease  its  bitter  persecution,  but  you  in  turn 
ought  to  cease  terrorizing  us  by  your  band  of  Cir- 
cumcelliones.  . . . Let  us  discuss  our  differences  from 
the  standpoint  of  reason  and  the  sacred  Scriptures.”  3 

In  one  of  his  works,  now  lost,  Contra  partem  Donati , 
he  maintains  that  it  is  wrong  for  the  State  to  force 
schismatics  to  come  back  to  the  Church.4  At  the  most, 
he  was  ready  to  admit  the  justice  of  the  law  of  Theo- 
dosius, which  imposed  a fine  of  ten  gold  pieces  upon 
those  schismatics  who  had  committed  open  acts  of 

1 John  xviii.  11.  3 Ep.  xxiii,  n.  7. 

2 De  Schismate  Don.,  cap.  vii.  4 Retract,  lib.  II,  cap.  v. 


THE  INQUISITION 


13 


violence.  But  no  man  was  to  be  punished  by  the 
State  for  private  heretical  opinions.1 

The  imperial  laws  were  carried  out  in  some  cities 
of  North  Africa,  because  many  of  St.  Augustine’s 
colleagues  did  not  share  his  views.  Many  Donatists 
were  brought  back  to  the  fold  by  these  vigorous 
measures.  St.  Augustine,  seeing  that  in  some  cases 
the  use  of  force  proved  more  beneficial  than  his  policy 
of  absolute  toleration,  changed  his  views,  and  formulated 
his  theory  of  moderate  persecution:  temper ataseveritas. 2 

Heretics  and  schismatics,  he  maintained,  were  to  be 
regarded  as  sheep  who  had  gone  astray.  It  is  the 
shepherd’s  duty  to  run  after  them,  and  bring  them 
back  to  the  fold  by  using,  if  occasion  require  it,  the 
whip  and  the  goad.3  There  is  no  need  of  using  cruel 
tortures  like  the  rack,  the  iron  pincers,  or  sending 
them  to  the  stake  ; flogging  is  sufficient.  Besides 
this  mode  of  punishment  is  not  at  all  cruel,  for  it  is 
used  by  schoolmasters,  parents,  and  even  by  bishops 
while  presiding  as  judges  in  their  tribunals.4 

In  his  opinion,  the  severest  penalty  that  ought  to  be 
inflicted  upon  the  Donatists  is  exile  for  their  bishops 
and  priests,  and  fines  for  their  followers.  He  strongly 
denounced  the  death  penalty  as  contrary  to  Christian 
charity.5 

Both  the  imperial  officers  and  the  Donatists  them- 
selves objected  to  this  theory. 

The  officers  of  the  Emperor  wished  to  apply  the  law 
in  all  its  rigor,  and  to  sentence  the  schismatics  to 

1 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  25. 

2 Ep.  xciii,  n.  10. 

3 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  23. 

4 Ep.  cxxxiii,  n.  2. 

5 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  26;  Ep.  xciii,  n.  10. 


14 


THE  INQUISITION 


death,  when  they  deemed  it  proper.  St.  Augustine 
adjures  them,  in  the  name  of  “ Christian  and  Catholic 
meekness  ” 1 not  to  go  to  this  extreme,  no  matter  how 
great  the  crimes  of  the  Donatists  had  been.  “ You 
have  penalties  enough,”  he  writes,  “ exile,  for  instance, 
without  torturing  their  bodies  or  putting  them  to 
death.”  2 

And  when  the  proconsul  Apringius  quoted  St.  Paul 
to  justify  the  use  of  the  sword,  St.  Augustine  replied: 
“ The  apostle  has  well  said,  ‘ for  he  beareth  not  the 
sword  in  vain/  3 But  we  must  carefully  distinguish 
between  temporal  and  spiritual  affairs.”  4 “ Because 

it  is  just  to  inflict  the  death  penalty  for  crimes  against 
the  common  law,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  right  to 
put  heretics  and  schismatics  to  death.”  “ Punish  the 
guilty  ones,  but  do  not  put  them  to  death.”  “ For,” 
he  writes  another  proconsul,  “ if  you  decide  upon 
putting  them  to  death,  you  will  thereby  prevent  our 
denouncing  them  before  your  tribunal.  They  will 
then  rise  up  against  us  with  greater  boldness.  And 
if  you  tell  us  that  we  must  either  denounce  them  or 
risk  death  at  their  hands,  we  will  not  hesitate  a 
moment,  but  will  choose  death  ourselves.”  5 

Despite  these  impassioned  appeals  for  mercy,  some 
Donatists  were  put  to  death.  This  prompted  the 
schismatics  everywhere  to  deny  that  the  State  had  any 
right  to  inflict  the  death  penalty  or  any  other  penalty 
upon  them.6 


1 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  26;  Ep.  cxxxix,  n.  2. 

2 Ep.  cxxxiii,  n.  1. 

3 Rom.  xiii.  4. 

4 Ep.  cxxxiv,  n.  3. 

5 Ep.  c,  n.  2;  cf.  Ep.  cxxxix,  n.  2. 

6 Contra  Epistolam  Parmeniani , lib.  i,  cap.  xvi. 


THE  INQUISITION 


15 


St.  Augustine  at  once  undertook  to  defend  the  rights 
of  the  State.  He  declared  that  the  death  penalty, 
which  on  principle  he  disapproved,  might  in  some 
instances  be  lawfully  inflicted.  Did  not  the  crimes  of 
some  of  these  rebellious  schismatics  merit  the  most 
extreme  penalty  of  the  law?  “ They  kill  the  souls 
of  men,  and  the  State  merely  tortures  their  bodies; 
they  cause  eternal  death,  and  then  complain  when  the 
State  makes  them  suffer  temporal  death.”  1 

But  this  is  only  an  argument  ad  hominem.  St. 
Augustine  means  to  say  that,  even  if  the  Donatists 
were  put  to  death,  they  had  no  reason  to  complain. 
He  does  not  admit,  in  fact,  that  they  had  been  cruelly 
treated.  The  victims  they  allege  are  false  martyrs  or 
suicides.2  He  denounces  those  Catholics  who,  outside 
of  cases  of  self-defense,  had  murdered  their  opponents.3 

The  State  also  has  the  perfect  right  to  impose  the 
lesser  penalties  of  flogging,  fines,  and  exile.  “ For  he 
(the  prince)  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain,”  says  the 
Apostle.  “ For  he  is  God’s  minister;  an  avenger  to 
execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.”  4 It  is  not 
true  to  claim  that  St.  Paul  here  meant  merely  the 
spiritual  sword  of  excommunication.5  The  context 
proves  clearly  that  he  was  speaking  of  the  material 
sword.  Schism  and  heresy  are  crimes  which,  like 
poisoning,  are  punishable  by  the  State.6  Princes  must 
render  an  account  to  God  for  the  way  they  govern. 

1 In  Joann.  Tractat.  xi,  cap.  xv. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Ep.  lxxxvii,  n.  8. 

4 Rom.  xiii;  4.  Augustine,  Contra  litter  as  Petiliani,  lib.  ii,  cap. 

lxxxiii-lxxxiv;  Contra  Epist.  Parmeniani , lib.  i,  cap.  xvi. 

6 Contra  Epist.  Parmeniani , ibid. 

6 Ibid . 


16 


THE  INQUISITION 


It  is  natural  that  they  should  desire  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  their  mother,  who  gave  them  spiritual  life.1 

The  State,  therefore,  has  the  right  to  suppress 
heresy,  because  the  public  tranquillity  is  disturbed  by 
religious  dissensions.2  Her  intervention  also  works  for 
the  good  of  individuals.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  there 
are  some  sincere  but  timid  souls  who  are  prevented 
by  their  environment  from  abandoning  their  schism; 
they  are  encouraged  to  return  to  the  fold  by  the  civil 
power,  which  frees  them  from  a most  humiliating 
bondage.3 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  schismatics  in 
good  faith  who  would  never  attain  the  truth  unless 
they  were  forced  to  enter  into  themselves  and  examine 
their  false  position.  The  civil  power  admonishes  such 
souls  to  abandon  their  errors;  it  does  not  punish  them 
for  any  crime.4  The  Church’s  rebellious  children  are 
not  forced  to  believe,  but  are  induced  by  a salutary 
fear  to  listen  to  the  true  doctrine.5 

Conversions  obtained  in  this  way  are  none  the  less 
sincere.  Undoubtedly,  absolute  toleration  is  best  in 
theory,  but  in  practice  a certain  amount  of  coercion  is 
more  helpful  to  souls.  We  must  judge  both  methods 
by  their  fruits. 

In  a word,  St.  Augustine  was  at  first,  by  tempera- 
ment, an  advocate  of  absolute  toleration,  but  later  on 
experience  led  him  to  prefer  a mitigated  form  of  co- 
ercion. When  his  opponents  objected — using  words 

1 In  Joann.  Tractatus  xi,  cap.  xiv. 

2 Ep.  lxxxii,  n.  8. 

3 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  13. 

4 Ep.  xciii,  n.  10. 

5 Contra  litteras  Petiliani , lib.  ii,  cap.  lxxxiii;  Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  21; 
Ep.  xciii,  n.  4. 


THE  INQUISITION 


17 


similar  to  those  of  St.  Hilary  and  the  early  Fathers 
— that  “ the  true  Church  suffered  persecution,  but  did 
not  persecute,”  1 he  quoted  Sara’s  persecution  of  Agar.2 
He  was  wrong  to  quote  the  Old  Testament  as  his 
authority.  But  we  ought  at  least  be  thankful  that  he 
did  not  cite  other  instances  more  incompatible  with 
the  charity  of  the  Gospel.  His  instinctive  Christian 
horror  of  the  death  penalty  kept  him  from  making 
this  mistake. 

Priscillianism  brought  out  clearly  the  views  current 
in  the  fourth  century  regarding  the  punishment  due 
to  heresy.  Very  little  was  known  of  Priscillian  until 
lately;  and  despite  the  publication  of  several  of  his 
works  in  1889,  he  still  remains  an  enigmatical  per- 
sonality.3 His  erudition  and  critical  spirit  were,  how- 
ever, so  remarkable,  that  an  historian  of  weight  de- 
clares that  henceforth  we  must  rank  him  with  St. 
Jerome.4  But  his  writings  were,  in  all  probability,  far 
from  orthodox.  We  can  easily  find  in  them  traces  of 
Gnosticism  and  Manicheism.  He  was  accused  of 
Manicheism  although  he  anathematized  Manes.  He 
was  likewise  accused  of  magic.  He  denied  the  charge, 
and  declared  that  every  magician  deserved  death, 
according  to  Exodus:  “ Wizards  thou  shalt  not  suffer 
to  live.”  6 He  little  dreamt  when  he  wrote  these  words 
that  he  was  pronouncing  his  own  death  sentence. 

1 Ep.  clxxxv,  n.  10. 

* Ibid.,  n.ll. 

3 On  Priscillian  and  his  work,  cf.  Dom  Leclerc,  UEspagne 
Chrttienne,  Paris,  1906,  ch.  iii;  Friedrich  Paret,  Priscillianus, 
Wurzburg,  1891;  Kuenstle,  Antiprisdlliana , Freiburg,  1905. 

4 Cf.  Leclerc,  p.  164. 

6 Exod,  xxii,  18. 


18 


THE  INQUISITION 


Although  condemned  by  the  council  of  Saragossa  (380), 
he  nevertheless  became  bishop  of  Abila.  Later  on, 
he  went  to  Rome  to  plead  his  cause  before  Pope 
Damasus,  but  was  refused  a hearing.  He  next  turned 
to  St.  Ambrose,  who  likewise  would  not  hearken  to 
his  defense.1  In  385  a council  was  assembled  at  Bor- 
deaux to  consider  his  case  anew.  He  at  once  appealed 
to  the  Emperor,  “ so  as  not  to  be  judged  by  the 
bishops,”  as  Sulpicius  Severus  tells  us,  a fatal  mistake 
which  cost  him  his  life. 

He  was  then  conducted  to  the  Emperor  at  Treves, 
where  he  was  tried  before  a secular  court,  bishops 
Idacius  and  Ithacius  appearing  as  his  accusers.  St. 
Martin,  who  was  in  Treves  at  the  time,  was  scandal- 
ized that  a purely  ecclesiastical  matter  should  be  tried 
before  a secular  judge.  His  biographer,  Sulpicius 
Severus,  tells  us  “ that  he  kept  urging  Ithacius  to 
withdraw  his  accusation.”  He  also  entreated  Maxi- 
mus not  to  shed  the  blood  of  these  unfortunates,  for 
the  bishops  could  meet  the  difficulty  by  driving  the 
heretics  from  the  churches.  He  asserted  that  to  make 
the  State  judge  in  a matter  of  doctrine  was  a cruel, 
unheard-of  violation  of  the  divine  law. 

As  long  as  St.  Martin  remained  in  Treves,  the  trial 
was  put  off,  and  before  he  left  the  city,  he  made  Maxi- 
mus promise  not  to  shed  the  blood  of  Priscillian  and 
his  companions.  But  soon  after  St.  Martin’s  depar- 
ture, the  Emperor,  instigated  by  the  relentless  bishops 
Rufus  and  Magnus,  forgot  his  promise  of  mercy,  and 
entrusted  the  case  to  the  prefect  Evodius,  a cruel  and 
hard-hearted  official.  Priscillian  appeared  before  him 

1 Cf.  Sulp.  Sev.  Chronicon,  ii,  P.  L.,  vol.  xx,  col.  155-159; 
Dialogi , iii,  11-23,  ibid.,  col.  217-219. 


THE  INQUISITION 


19 


twice,  and  was  convicted  of  the  crime  of  magic.  He  was 
made  to  confess  under  torture  that  he  had  given  him- 
self up  to  magical  arts,  and  that  he  had  prayed  naked 
before  women  in  midnight  assemblies.  Evodius  de- 
clared him  guilty,  and  placed  him  under  guard  until 
the  evidence  had  been  presented  to  the  Emperor. 
After  reading  the  records  of  the  trial,  Maximus  declared 
that  Priscillian  and  his  companions  deserved  death. 
Ithacius,  perceiving  how  unpopular  he  would  make 
himself  with  his  fellow-bishops,  if  he  continued  to  play 
the  part  of  prosecutor  in  a capital  case,  withdrew.  A 
new  trial  was  therefore  ordered.  This  subterfuge  of 
the  Bishop  did  not  change  matters  at  all,  because  by 
this  time  the  case  had  been  practically  settled.  Patric- 
ius,  the  imperial  treasurer,  presided  at  the  second 
trial.  On  his  findings,  Priscillian  and  some  of  his 
followers  were  condemned  to  death.  Others  of  the 
sect  were  exiled. 

This  deplorable  trial  is  often  brought  forward  as  an 
argument  against  the  Church.  It  is  important,  there- 
fore, for  us  to  ascertain  its  precise  character,  and  to 
discover  who  was  to  blame  for  it. 

The  real  cause  of  Priscillian’s  condemnation  was  the 
accusation  of  heresy  made  by  a Catholic  bishop. 
Technically,  he  was  tried  in  the  secular  courts  for  the 
crime  of  magic,  but  the  State  could  not  condemn  him 
to  death  on  any  other  charge,  once  Ithacius  had  ceased 
to  appear  against  him. 

It  is  right,  therefore,  to  attribute  Priscillian’s  death 
to  the  action  of  an  individual  bishop,  but  it  is  alto- 
gether unjust  to  hold  the  Church  responsible.1 

1 Bemays,  Ueber  die  Chronik  des  Sulp.  Sev.,  Berlin,  1861,  p.  13, 
was  the  first  to  point  out  that  Priscillian  was  condemned  not 


20 


THE  INQUISITION 


In  this  way  contemporary  writers  viewed  the  matter. 
The  Christians  of  the  fourth  century  were  all  but 
unanimous,  says  an  historian,1  in  denouncing  the 
penalty  inflicted  in  this  famous  trial.  Sulpicius 
Severus,  despite  his  horror  of  the  Priscillianists,  repeats 
over  and  over  again  that  their  condemnation  was  a 
deplorable  example;  he  even  stigmatizes  it  as  a crime. 
St.  Ambrose  speaks  just  as  strongly.2  We  know  how 
vehemently  St.  Martin  disapproved  of  the  attitude  of 
Ithacius  and  the  Emperor  Maximus;  he  refused  for 
a long  time  to  hold  communion  with  the  bishops  who 
had  in  any  way  taken  part  in  the  condemnation  of  Pris- 
cillian.3  Even  in  Spain,  where  public  opinion  was  so 
divided,  Ithacius  was  everywhere  denounced.  At  first 
some  defended  him  on  the  plea  of  the  public  good,  and 
on  account  of  the  high  authority  of  those  who  judged 
the  case.  But  after  a time  he  became  so  generally 
hated  that,  despite  his  excuse  that  he  merely  followed 
the  advice  of  others,  he  was  driven  from  his  bishopric.4 
This  outburst  of  popular  indignation  proves  conclu- 
sively that,  if  the  Church  did  call  upon  the  aid  of  the 
secular  arm  in  religious  questions,  she  did  not  author- 
ize it  to  use  the  sword  against  heretics. 

The  blood  of  Priscillian  was  the  seed  of  Priscillian- 
ism.  But  his  disciples  certainly  went  further  than 
their  master;  they  became  thoroughgoing  Manicheans. 
This  explains  St.  Jerome’s  5 and  St.  Augustine’s  6 strong 

for  heresy,  but  for  the  crime  of  magic.  This  is  the  commonly 
received  view  to-day. 

1 Pu6ch,  Journal  des  Savants,  May  1891,  p.  250. 

2 Cf.  Gams,  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien , vol.  ii,  p.  382. 

3 Sulpicius  Severus,  Dialogi  iii,  11-13. 

4 Sulp.  Sev.,  Chronicon,  loc . cit. 

6 De  Viris  illustribus,  121-123. 

6 De  hceresibus,  cap.  70. 


THE  INQUISITION 


21 


denunciations  of  the  Spanish  heresy.  The  gross  errors 
of  the  Priscillianists  in  the  fifth  century  attracted  in 
447  the  attention  of  Pope  St.  Leo.  He  reproaches 
them  for  breaking  the  bonds  of  marriage,  rejecting  all 
idea  of  chastity,  and  contravening  all  rights,  human 
and  divine.  He  evidently  held  Priscillian  responsible 
for  all  these  teachings.  That  is  why  he  rejoices  in  the 
fact  that  “ the  secular  princes,  horrified  at  this  sacri- 
legious folly,  executed  the  author  of  these  errors  with 
several  of  his  followers.”  He  even  declares  that  this 
action  of  the  State  is  helpful  to  the  Church.  He 
writes:  “The  Church,  in  the  spirit  of  Christ,  ought  to 
denounce  heretics,  but  should  never  put  them  to  death; 
still  the  severe  laws  of  Christian  princes  redound  to 
her  good,  for  some  heretics,  through  fear  of  punish- 
ment, are  won  back  to  the  true  faith.”  1 St.  Leo  in 
this  passage  is  rather  severe.  While  he  does  not  yet 
require  the  death  penalty  for  heresy,  he  accepts  it  in 
the  name  of  the  public  good.  It  is  greatly  to  be  feared 
that  the  churchmen  of  the  future  will  go  a great  deal 
further. 

The  Church  is  endeavoring  to  state  her  position 
accurately  on  the  suppression  of  heresy.  She  declares 
that  nothing  will  justify  her  shedding  of  human  blood. 
This  is  evident  from  the  conduct  and  writings  of  St. 
Augustine,  St.  Martin,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Leo  ( cruentas 
refugit  ultiones)f  and  Ithacius  himself.  But  to  what 
extent  should  she  accept  the  aid  of  the  civil  power, 
when  it  undertakes  to  defend  her  teachings  by  force? 

Some  writers,  like  St.  Optatus  of  Mileve,  and  Pris- 
cillian, later  on  the  victim  of  his  own  teaching,  believed 
that  the  Christian  State  ought  to  use  the  sword  against 

1 Ep.  xy,  ad  Turribium,  P.  L.,  vol.  liv,  col.  679-680. 


22 


THE  INQUISITION 


heretics  guilty  of  crimes  against  the  public  welfare; 
and,  strangely  enough,  they  quote  the  Old  Testament 
as  their  authority.  Without  giving  his  approval  to 
this  theory,  St.  Leo  the  Great  did  not  condemn  the 
practical  application  of  it  in  the  case  of  the  Priscillian- 
ists.  The  Church,  according  to  him,  while  assuming 
no  responsibility  for  them,  reaped  the  benefit  of  the 
rigorous  measures  taken  by  the  State. 

But  most  of  the  Bishops  absolutely  condemned  the 
infliction  of  the  death  penalty  for  heresy,  even  if  the 
heresy  was  incidentally  the  cause  of  social  disturbances. 
Such  was  the  view  of  St.  Augustine,1  St.  Martin,  St. 
Ambrose,  many  Spanish  bishops,  and  a bishop  of  Gaul 
named  Theognitus;2  in  a word,  of  all  who  disapproved 
of  the  condemnation  of  Priscillian.  As  a rule,  they 
protested  in  the  name  of  Christian  charity;  they 
voiced  the  new  spirit  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  At  the 
other  extremity  of  the  Catholic  world,  St.  John  Chry- 
sostom re-echoes  their  teaching.  “ To  put  a heretic 
to  death,”  he  says,  “ is  an  unpardonable  crime.”  3 
But  in  view  of  the  advantage  to  the  Church,  either 
from  the  maintenance  of  the  public  peace,  or  from  the 
conversion  of  individuals,  the  State  may  employ  a 
certain  amount  of  force  against  heretics. 

“ God  forbids  us  to  put  them  to  death,”  continues 
St.  Chrysostom,  “ just  as  he  forbade  the  servants  to 
gather  up  the  cockle,”  4 because  he  regards  their  con- 
version as  possible;  but  he  does  not  forbid  us  doing 
all  in  our  power  to  prevent  their  public  meetings,  and 

1 Ep.  c,  n.  l. 

1 Cf.  Sulpicius  Severus,  Dialogi,  iii,  12,  loc.  cit.,  col.  218. 

3 Homilia  xlvi,  in  Matthceum , cap.  i. 

4 Ibid.,  cap.  ii. 


THE  INQUISITION 


23 


their  preaching  of  false  doctrine.  St.  Augustine  adds 
that  they  may  be  punished  by  fine  and  exile. 

To  this  extent  the  churchmen  of  the  day  accepted 
the  aid  of  the  secular  arm.  Nor  were  they  content 
with  merely  accepting  it.  They  declared  that  the 
State  had  not  only  the  right  to  help  the  Church  in 
suppressing  heresy,  but  that  she  was  in  duty  bound 
to  do  so.  In  the  seventh  century,  St.  Isidore  of  Seville 
discusses  this  question  in  practically  the  same  terms 
as  St.  Augustine.1 

1 We  think  it  important  to  give  Lea’s  r6sum6  of  this  period. 
It  will  show  how  a writer,  although  trying  to  be  impartial,  may 
distort  the  facts:  “ It  was  only  sixty-two  years  after  the 

slaughter  of  Priscillian  and  his  followers  had  excited  so  much 
horror,  that  Leo  I,  when  the  heresy  seemed  to  be  reviving,  in 
447,  not  only  justified  the  act,  but  declared  that  if  the  followers 
of  heresy  so  damnable  were  allowed  to  live , there  would  be  an  end 
to  human  and  divine  law.  The  final  step  had  been  taken,  and 
the  Church  was  definitely  pledged  to  the  suppression  of  heresy  at 
whatever  cost.  It  is  impossible  not  to  attribute  to  ecclesiastical 
influence  the  successive  Edicts  by  which,  from  the  time  of 
Theodosius  the  Great,  persistence  in  heresy  was  punished  by 
death.  A powerful  impulse  to  this  development  is  to  be  found 
in  the  responsibility  which  grew  upon  the  Church  from  its 
connection  with  the  State.  When  it  could  influence  the  monarch 
and  procure  from  him  Edicts  condemning  heretics  to  exile,  to 
the  mines,  and  even  to  death,  it  felt  that  God  had  put  into  its 
hands  powers  to  be  exercised  and  not  to  be  neglected  ” (vol.  i, 
p.  215).  If  we  read  carefully  the  words  of  St.  Leo  (p.  27,  note  1), 
we  shall  see  that  the  Emperors  are  responsible  for  the  words 
that  Lea  ascribes  to  the  Pope.  It  is  hard  to  understand  how 
he  can  assert  that  the  imperial  Edicts  decreeing  the  death 
penalty  are  due  to  ecclesiastical  influence,  when  we  notice  that 
nearly  all  the  churchmen  of  the  day  protested  against  such 
a penalty 


CHAPTER  III 


THIRD  PERIOD 
From  1100  to  1250 

The  Revival  of  the  Manichean  Heresies  in  the 
Middle  Ages 

From  the  sixth  to  the  eleventh  century,  heretics, 
with  the  exception  of  certain  Manichean  sects,  were 
hardly  ever  persecuted.1  In  the  sixth  century,  for 
instance,  the  Arians  lived  side  by  side  with  the  Catho- 
lics, under  the  protection  of  the  State,  in  a great  many 
Italian  cities,  especially  in  Ravenna  and  Pavia.2 

During  the  Carlovingian  period,  we  come  across  a 
few  heretics,  but  they  gave  little  trouble. 

The  Adoptianism  of  Elipandus,  Archbishop  of  Toledo, 
and  Felix,  Bishop  of  Urgel,  was  abandoned  by  its 
authors,  after  it  had  been  condemned  by  Pope  Adrian 
I,  and  several  provincial  councils.3 

A more  important  heresy  arose  in  the  ninth  century. 
Godescalcus,  a monk  of  Orbais,  in  the  diocese  of 

1 In  556,  Manicheans  were  put  to  death  at  Ravenna,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  of  Justinian. 

2 We  may  still  visit  at  Ravenna  the  Arian  and  Catholic 
baptisteries  of  the  sixth  century.  Cf.  Gregorii  Magni  Dialogi, 
iii,  cap.  xxix,  Mon.  Germ.,  ibid.,  pp.  534-535. 

8 Einhard:  Annales,  ann.  792,  in  the  Mon.  Germ.  SS .,  vol.  i, 
p.  179. 


24 


THE  INQUISITION 


25 


Soissons,  taught  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  die  for  all 
men.  His  errors  on  predestination  were  condemned 
as  heretical  by  the  Council  of  Mainz  (848) ; and  Quierzy 
(849);  and  he  himself  was  sentenced  to  be  flogged 
and  then  imprisoned  for  life  in  the  monastery  of 
Hautvilliers.1  But  this  punishment  of  flogging  was  a 
purely  ecclesiastical  penalty.  Archbishop  Hincmar,  in 
ordering  it,  declared  that  he  was  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict,  and  a canon  of  the 
Council  of  Agde. 

The  imprisonment  to  which  Godescalcus  was  sub- 
jected was  likewise  a monastic  punishment.  Prac- 
tically, it  did  not  imply  much  more  than  the  confine- 
ment strictly  required  by  the  rules  of  his  convent.  It 
is  interesting  to  note  that  imprisonment  for  crime  is 
of  purely  ecclesiastical  origin.  The  Roman  law  knew 
nothing  of  it.  It  was  at  first  a penalty  peculiar  to 
monks  and  clerics,  although  later  on  laymen  also  were 
subjected  to  it. 

About  the  year  1000,  the  Manicheans,  under  various 
names,  came  from  Bulgaria,  and  spread  over  western 
Europe.2  We  meet  them  about  this  time  in  Italy, 
Spain,  France,  and  Germany.  Public  sentiment  soon 
became  bitter  against  them,  and  they  became  the 
victims  of  a general,  though  intermittent,  persecution. 
Orleans,  Arras,  Cambrai,  Chalons,  Goslai,  Liege, 
Soissons,  Ravenna,  Monteforte,  Asti,  and  Toulouse 
became  the  field  of  their  propaganda,  and  often  the 
place  of  their  execution.  Several  heretics  like  Peter 

1<(  In  nostra  parochia  . . . monasteriali  costudise  mancipatus 
est.”  Hincmar’s  letter  to  Pope  Nicholas  I,  Hincmari  Opera , 
ed.  Sirmond,  Paris,  1645,  vol.  ii,  p.  262. 

2 Cf.  C.  Schmidt,  Histoire  et  doctrine  de  la  secte  des  Cathares , 

vol.  i,  pp.  16-54,  82. 


26 


THE  INQUISITION 


of  Bruys,  Henry  of  Lausanne,  Arnold  of  Brescia,  and 
Eon  de  l’Etoile  (Eudo  de  Stella),  likewise  troubled 
the  Church,  who  to  stop  their  bold  propaganda  used 
force  herself,  or  permitted  the  State  or  the  people  to 
use  it. 

It  was  at  Orleans  in  1022  that  Catholics  for  the  first 
time  during  this  period  treated  heretics  with  cruelty. 
An  historian  of  the  time  assures  us  that  this  cruelty 
was  due  to  both  king  and  people : regis  jussu  et  universce 
plebis  consensu.1  King  Robert,  dreading  the  disastrous 
■ effects  of  heresy  upon  his  kingdom,  and  the  consequent 
loss  of  souls,  sent  thirteen  of  the  principal  clerics 
and  laymen  of  the  town  to  the  stake.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  this  penalty  was  something  unheard-of 
at  the  time.  “ Robert  was  therefore  the  originator 
of  the  punishment  which  he  decreed.”  2 It  might  be 
said,  however,  that  this  penalty  originated  with  the 
people,  and  that  the  king  merely  followed  out  the  pop- 
ular will. 

For,  as  an  old  chronicler  tells  us,  this  execution  at 
Orleans,  was  not  an  isolated  fact;  in  other  places  the 
populace  hunted  out  heretics,  and  burned  them  out- 
side the  city  walls.3 

Several  years  later,  the  heretics  who  swarmed  into 
the  diocese  of  Chalons  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
Bishop  of  the  city,  who  was  puzzled  how  to  deal  with 
them.  He  consulted  Wazo,  the  Bishop  of  Liege,  who 

1 Raoul  Glaber,  Hist .,  lib.  iii,  cap.  viii,  Hist,  des  Gaules , vol.  x, 
p.  38.  For  other  authorities  consult  Julien  Havet,  Uheresie 
et  le  bras  s6culier  au  moyen  age , in  his  (Euvresy  Paris,  1896,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  128-130. 

2 Julien  Havet,  op.  cit.,  pp.  128,  129. 

3 Cartulaire  de  Vabbaye  de  Saint-Pere  de  Chartres , ed.  Guerard, 
vol.  i,  p.  108  and  seq.;  cf.  Hist,  des  Gaules , vol.  x,  p.  539. 


THE  INQUISITION 


27 


tells  us  that  the  French  were  “ infuriated  ” against 
heretics.  These  words  would  seem  to  prove  that  the 
heretics  of  the  day  were  prosecuted  more  vigorously 
than  the  documents  we  possess  go  to  show.  It  is 
probable  that  the  Bishop  of  Chalons  detested  the 
“ fury  ” of  the  persecutors.  We  will  see  later  on  the 
answer  that  Wazo  sent  him. 

During  the  Christmas  holidays  of  1051  and  1052,  a 
number  of  Manicheans  or  Cathari,  as  they  were  called, 
were  executed  at  Goslar,  after  they  had  refused  to 
renounce  their  errors.  Instead  of  being  burned,  as  in 
France,  “ they  were  hanged.” 

These  heretics  were  executed  by  the  orders  of  Henry 
III,  and  in  his  presence.  But  the  chronicler  of  the 
event  remarks  that  every  one  applauded  the  Emperor’s 
action,  because  he  had  prevented  the  spread  of  the 
leprosy  of  heresy,  and  thus  saved  many  souls.1 

Twenty-five  years  later,  in  1076  or  1077,  a Catharan 
of  the  district  of  Cambrai  appeared  before  the  Bishop 
of  Cambrai  and  his  clerics,  and  was  condemned  as  a 
heretic.  The  Bishop’s  officers  and  the  crowd  at  once 
seized  him,  led  him  outside  the  city’s  gates,  and  while 
he  knelt  and  calmly  prayed,  they  burned  him  at  the 
stake.2 

A little  while  before  this  the  Archbishop  of  Ravenna 
accused  a man  named  Vilgard  of  heresy,  but  what  the 
result  of  the  trial  was,  we  cannot  discover.  But  we 
do  know  that  during  this  period  other  persons  were 

1 Heriman,  Aug.  Chronicon , ann.  1052,  Mon.  Germ.  SS.,  vol. 
v,  p.  130.  Cf.  Lamberti,  Annales , 1053,  ibid.,  p.  155. 

2 Chronicon  S.  Andreae  Camerac.,  iii,  3,  in  the  Mon.  Germ.  SS., 
vol.  vii,  p.  540. 

We  have  a letter  of  Gregory  VII  in  which  he  denounces  the 
irregular  character  of  this  execution.  Ibid.,  p.  540,  n.  31. 


28 


THE  INQUISITION 


prosecuted  for  heresy,  and  that  they  were  beheaded 
or  sent  to  the  stake. 

At  Monteforte  near  Asti,  the  Cathari  had,  about 
1034,  an  important  settlement.  The  Marquis  Main- 
froi,  his  brother,  the  Bishop  of  Asti,  and  several  noble- 
men of  the  city,  united  to  attack  the  castrum;  they 
captured  a number  of  heretics,  and  on  their  refusing 
to  return  to  the  orthodox  faith,  they  sent  them  to  the 
stake. 

Other  followers  of  the  sect  were  arrested  by  the 
officers  of  Eriberto,  the  Archbishop  of  Milan,  who 
endeavored  to  win  them  back  to  the  Catholic  faith. 
Instead  of  being  converted,  they  tried  to  spread  their 
heresy  throughout  the  city.  The  civil  magistrates, 
realizing  their  corrupting  influence,  had  a stake  erected 
in  the  public  square  with  a cross  in  front  of  it;  and 
in  spite  of  the  Archbishop’s  protest,  they  required  the 
heretics  either  to  reverence  the  cross  they  had  blas- 
phemed, or  to  enter  the  flaming  pile.  Some  were  con- 
verted, but  the  majority  of  them,  covering  their  faces 
with  their  hands,  threw  themselves  into  the  flames, 
and  were  soon  burned  to  ashes. 

Few  details  have  come  down  to  us  concerning  the 
fate  of  the  Manicheans  arrested  at  this  time  in  Sar- 
dinia and  in  Spain;  exterminati  sunt , says  a chronicler.1 

The  Cathari  of  Toulouse  were  also  arrested,  and  exe- 
cuted. A few  years  later,  in  1114,  the  Bishop  of 
Soissons  arrested  a number  of  heretics  and  cast  them 
into  prison  until  he  could  make  up  his  mind  how  to 

1 “ Exterminati  sunt,”  says  Raoul  Glaber,  Hist.y  lib.  ii,  cap. 
xii,  Hist,  des  Gaules,  vol.  x,  p.  23. 

Exterminati  may  mean  banished  as  well  as  put  to  death.  The 
context,  however,  seems  to  refer  to  the  death  penalty. 


THE  INQUISITION 


29 


deal  with  them.  While  he  was  absent  at  Beauvais, 
asking  the  advice  of  his  fellow-bishops  assembled  there 
in  council,  the  populace,  fearing  the  weakness  of  the 
clergy,  attacked  the  prison,  dragged  forth  the  heretics, 
and  burned  them  at  the  stake.  Guibert  de  Nogent 
does  not  blame  them  in  the  least.  He  simply  calls 
attention  to  “ the  just  zeal  ” shown  on  this  occasion 
by  “ the  people  of  God,”  to  stop  the  spread  of  heresy. 

In  1144  the  Bishop  of  Liege,  Adalbero  II,  compelled 
a number  of  Cathari  to  confess  their  heresy;  “ he 
hoped,”  he  said,  “ with  the  grace  of  God,  to  lead  them 
to  repent.”  But  the  populace,  less  kindly-hearted, 
rushed  upon  them,  and  proceeded  to  burn  them  at  the 
stake;  the  Bishop  had  the  greatest  difficulty  to  save 
the  majority  of  them.  He  then  wrote  to  Pope  Lucius 
II  asking  him  what  was  the  proper  penalty  for  heresy.1 
We  do  not  know  what  answer  he  received. 

About  the  same  time  a similar  dispute  arose  between 
the  Archbishop  and  the  people  of  Cologne  regarding 
two  or  three  heretics  who  had  been  arrested  and  con- 
demned. The  clergy  asked  them  to  return  to  the 
Church.  But  the  people,  “ moved  by  an  excess  of 
zeal,”  says  an  historian  of  the  time,  seized  them,  and 
despite  the  Archbishop  and  his  clerics  led  them  to  the 
stake.  “ And  marvelous  to  relate,”  continues  the 
chronicler,  “ they  suffered  their  tortures  at  the  stake, 
not  only  with  patience,  but  with  joy.”  2 

One  of  the  most  famous  heretics  of  the  twelfth 
century  was  Peter  of  jBruys.  His  hostility  toward 

1 Letter  of  the  church  of  Liege  to  Pope  Lucius  II,  in  Mart^ne, 
Amplissima  collection  vol.  i,  col.  776-777. 

2 Letter  of  Evervin,  provost  of  Steinfeld  to  St.  Bernard,  cap. 
ii,  in  Bernardi  Opera , Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  clxxxii,  col.  677. 


30 


THE  INQUISITION 


the  clergy  helped  his  propaganda  in  Gascony.  To 
show  his  contempt  for  the  Catholic  religion,  he  burned 
a great  number  of  crosses  one  Good  Friday,  and  roasted 
meat  in  the  flames.  This  angered  the  people  against 
him.  He  was  seized  and  burned  at  St.  Giles  about  the 
year  1126.1 

Henry  of  Lausanne  was  his  most  illustrious  disciple. 
We  have  told  the  story  of  his  life  elsewhere.2  St. 
Bernard  opposed  him  vigorously,  and  succeeded  in 
driving  him  from  the  chief  cities  of  Toulouse  and  the 
Albigeois,  where  he  carried  on  his  harmful  propaganda. 
He  was  arrested  a short  time  afterwards  (1145  or  1146), 
and  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment,  either  in  one  of 
the  prisons  of  the  Archbishop,  or  in  some  monastery 
of  Toulouse. 

Arnold  of  Brescia  busied  himself  more  with  questions 
of  discipline  than  with  dogma;  the  only  reforms  he 
advocated  were  social  reforms.3  He  taught  that  the 
clergy  should  not  hold  temporal  possessions,  and  he 
endeavored  to  drive  the  papacy  from  Rome.  In  this 
conflict,  which  involved  the  property  of  ecclesiastics  and 
the  temporal  power  of  the  Church,  he  was,  although 
successful  for  a time,  finally  vanquished.4  St.  Bernard 
invoked  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm  to  rid  France  of 
him.  Later  on  Pope  Eugenius  III  excommunicated 
him.  He  was  executed  during  the  pontificate  of  Adrian 
IV,  in  1155.  He  was  arrested  in  the  city  of  Rome 

1 Peter  the  Venerable,  Letter  to  the  Archbishops  of  Arles  and 
Embrum,  etc.,  in  the  Hist,  des  Gaules,  vol.  xv,  p.  640. 

2 Vie  de  Saint  Bernard , 1st  edit.,  Paris,  1895,  vol.  ii,  pp.  218-233. 

3 For  details  concerning  Arnold  of  Brescia,  cf.  Vacandard, 
Vie  de  Saint  Bernardf  vol.  ii,  pp.  235-258,  465-469. 

4 Otto  Frising,  Gesta  Friderici , lib.  ii,  cap.  xx.  Cf.  Historia 
Pontificals , in  the  Mon.  Germ f SS ,,  vol  xx,  pf  53,8. 


THE  INQUISITION 


31 


after  a riot  which  was  quelled  by  the  Emperor  Frederic, 
now  the  ally  of  the  Pope,  and  condemned  to  be 
strangled  by  the  prefect  of  the  city.  His  body  was 
then  burned,  and  his  ashes  thrown  into  the  Tiber, 
“ for  fear/ 7 says  a writer  of  the  time,  “ the  people 
would  gather  them  up,  and  honor  them  as  the  ashes 
of  a martyr.” 1 

In  1148,  the  Council  of  Rheims  judged  the  case  of 
the  famous  Eon  de  PEtoile  (Eudo  de  Stella).  This 
strange  individual  had  acquired  a reputation  for  sanc- 
tity while  living  a hermit’s  life.  One  day,  struck  by 
the  words  of  the  liturgy,  Per  Eum  qui  venturus  est 
judicare  vivos  et  mortuos , he  conceived  the  idea  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God.  He  made  some  converts  among 
the  lowest  classes,  who,  not  content  with  denying  the 
faith,  soon  began  to  pillage  the  churches.  Eon  was 
arrested  for  causing  these  disturbances,  and  was 
brought  before  Pope  Eugenius  III,  then  presiding  over 
the  Council  of  Rheims.  He  was  judged  insane,  and  in 
all  kindness  was  placed  under  the  charge  of  Suger, 
the  Abbot  of  St.  Denis.  He  was  confined  to  a monas- 
tery, where  he  died  soon  after. 

Strangely  enough,  some  of  his  disciples  persisted  in 
believing  in  him;  “ they  preferred  to  die  rather  than 
renounce  their  belief,”  says  an  historian  of  the  time. 
They  were  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm  and 
perished  at  the  stake.  In  decreeing  this  penalty,  the 
civil  power  was  undoubtedly  influenced  by  the  example 
of  Robert  the  Pious. 

It  is  easy  to  determine  the  responsibility  of  the 
Church,  i.  e .,  her  bishops  and  priests,  in  this  series  of 

1 Boso,  Vita  Hadriani,  in  Watterich,  Romanorum  pontificum 
Vitce , vol.  ii,  pp.  326,  330. 


32 


THE  INQUISITION 


executions  (1020  to  1150).  At  Orleans,  the  populace 
and  the  king  put  the  heretics  to  death;  the  historians 
of  the  time  tell  us  plainly  that  the  clergy  merely  de- 
clared the  orthodox  doctrine.  It  was  the  same  at 
Goslar.  At  Asti,  the  Bishop’s  name  appears  with  the 
names  of  the  other  nobles  who  had  the  Cathari 
executed,  but  it  seems  certain  that  he  exercised  no 
special  authority  in  the  case.  At  Milan,  the  civil 
magistrates  themselves,  against  the  Archbishop’s  pro- 
test, gave  the  heretics  the  choice  between  reverencing 
the  cross,  and  the  stake. 

At  Soissons,  the  populace,  feeling  certain  that  the 
clergy  would  not  resort  to  extreme  measures,  profited 
by  the  Bishop’s  absence  to  burn  the  heretics  they 
detested.  At  Liege,  the  Bishop  managed  to  save  a 
few  heretics  from  the  violence  of  the  angry  mob. 
At  Cologne,  the  Archbishop  was  not  so  successful;  the 
people  rose  in  their  anger  and  burned  the  heretics 
before  they  could  be  tried.  Peter  of  Bruys  and  the 
Manichean  at  Cambrai  were  both  put  to  death  by  the 
people.  Arnold  of  Brescia,  deserted  by  fortune,  fell  a 
victim  to  his  political  adversaries;  the  prefect  of  Rome 
was  responsible  for  his  execution.1 

1 The  case  of  Arnold,  however,  is  not  so  clear.  The  Annales 
Augustani  minores  {Mon.  Germ.  SS .,  vol.  x,  p.  8)  declare  that 
the  Pope  hanged  the  rebel.  Another  anonymous  writer  (cf. 
Tanon,  Hist,  des  tribunaux  de  V I nq.  en  France , p.  456,  n.  2)  says 
with  more  probability,  that  Adrian  merely  degraded  him. 
According  to  Otto  of  Freisingen  {Mon.  Germ.  SS.,  vol.  xx,  p.  404), 
Arnold  principis  examini  reservatus  est,  ad  vltimum  a proefecto 
Urbis  ligno  adactus.  Finally,  Geroch  de  Reichersberg  tells  us 
{De  investigation  Antichristi , lib.  i,  cap.  xlii,  ed.  Scheibelberger, 
1875,  pp.  88-89)  that  Arnold  was  taken  from  the  ecclesiastical 
prison  and  put  to  death  by  the  servants  of  the  Roman  prefect. 
In  any  case,  politics  rather  than  religion  was  the  cause  of  his 
death. 


THE  INQUISITION 


33 


In  a word,  in  all  these  executions,  the  Church  either 
kept  aloof,  or  plainly  manifested  her  disapproval. 

During  this  period,  we  know  of  only  one  bishop, 
Th^odwin  of  Liege,  who  called  upon  the  secular  arm 
to  punish  heretics.  This  is  all  the  more  remarkable 
because  his  predecessor,  Wazo,  and  his  successor,  Adal- 
bero  II,  both  protested  in  word  and  deed  against  the 
cruelty  of  both  sovereign  and  people. 

Wazo,  his  biographer  tells  us,  strongly  condemned 
the  execution  of  heretics  at  Goslar,  and,  had  he  been 
there,  would  have  acted  as  St.  Martin  of  Tours  in  the 
case  of  Priscillian.1  His  reply  to  the  letter  of  the 
Bishop  of  Chalons  reveals  his  inmost  thoughts  on  the 
subject.  “ To  use  the  sword  of  the  civil  authority,” 
he  says,  “ against  the  Manicheans,2  is  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Church,  and  the  teaching  of  her  Divine 
Founder.  The  Saviour  ordered  us  to  let  the  cockle  grow 
with  the  good  grain  until  the  harvest  time,  lest  in 
uprooting  the  cockle  we  uproot  also  the  wheat  with  it.3 
Moreover,  continues  Wazo,  those  who  are  cockle  to-day 
may  be  converted  to-morrow,  and  be  garnered  in  as 
wheat  at  the  harvest  time.  Therefore,  they  should  be 
allowed  to  live.  The  only  penalty  we  should  use 
against  them  is  excommunication.”4 

The  Bishop  of  Liege,  quoting  this  parable  of  Christ 
which  St.  Chrysostom  had  quoted  before  him,  in- 
terprets it  in  a more  liberal  fashion  than  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople.  For  he  not  only  condemns  the 
death  penalty,  but  all  recourse  to  the  secular  arm. 

1 Vita  Vasonis , cap.  xxv,  xxvi,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  cxlii,  col.  753. 

2 Ibid.,  col.  752. 

3 Matt.  xiii.  29-30. 

4 Vita  Vasonis , loc.  cit.,  col.  753. 


34 


THE  INQUISITION 


Peter  Cantor,  one  of  the  best  minds  of  northern 
France  in  the  twelfth  century,  also  protested  against 
the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  for  heresy, 
“ Whether/ 9 he  says,  “ the  Cathari  are  proved  guilty 
of  heresy,  or  whether  they  freely  admit  their  guilt, 
they  ought  not  to  be  put  to  death,  unless  they  attack 
the  Church  in  armed  rebellion.”  For  the  Apostle  said: 
“ A man  that  is  a heretic,  after  the  first  and  second 
admonition,  avoid;  ” he  did  not  say:  “ Kill  him.” 
“ Imprison  heretics  if  you  will,  but  do  not  put  them 
to  death.”  1 

Geroch  of  Reichersberg,  a famous  German  of  the 
same  period,  a disciple  and  friend  of  St.  Bernard,  speaks 
in  a similar  strain  of  the  execution  of  Arnold  of  Brescia. 
He  was  most  anxious  that  the  Church,  and  especially 
the  Roman  curia,  should  not  be  held  responsible  for 
his  death.  “ The  priesthood,”  he  says,  “ ought  to 
refrain  from  the  shedding  of  blood.”  There  is  no 
doubt  whatever  that  this  heretic  taught  a wicked 
doctrine,  but  banishment,  imprisonment,  or  some 
similar  penalty  would  have  been  ample  punishment 
for  his  wrong-doing,  without  sentencing  him  to 
death. 

St.  Bernard  had  also  asked  that  Arnold  be  banished. 
The  execution  of  heretics  at  Cologne  gave  him  a chance 
to  state  his  views  on  the  suppression  of  heresy.  The 
courage  with  which  these  fanatics  met  death  rather 
disconcerted  Evervin,  the  provost  of  Steinfeld, 
who  wrote  the  Abbot  of  Clairvaux  for  an  expla- 
nation.2 

1 Verbum  abbreviatum , cap.  lxxviii,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  ccv,  col. 
231. 

2 Evervin’s  letter  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  clxxxii,  col.  676  and  seq. 


THE  INQUISITION 


35 


u Their  courage/’  he  replies,  u arose  from  mere  stub- 
bornness; the  devil  inspired  them  with  this  constancy 
you  speak  of,  just  as  he  prompted  Judas  to  hang  him- 
self. These  heretics  are  not  real  but  counterfeit  mar- 
tyrs ( perfidice  martyr  es),  But  while  I may  approve 

the  zeal  of  the  people  for  the  faith,  I cannot  at  all 
approve  their  excessive  cruelty;  for  faith  is  a matter 
of  persuasion,  not  of  force:  fides  suadenda  est , non 
imponenda”  1 

On  principle,  the  Abbot  of  Clairvaux  blames  the 
bishops  and  even  the  secular  princes,  who  through  in- 
difference or  less  worthy  reasons  fail  to  hunt  for  the 
foxes  who  are  ravaging  the  vineyards  of  the  Savior. 
But  once  the  guilty  ones  have  been ' discovered,  he 
declares  that  only  kindness  should  be  used  to  win 
them  back.  “ Let  us  capture  them  by  arguments  and 
not  by  force/’  2 i.  e .,  let  us  first  refute  their  errors,  and 
if  possible  bring  them  back  into  the  fold  of  the  Catholic 
Church. 

If  they  stubbornly  refuse  to  be  converted,  let  the 
bishop  excommunicate  them,  to  prevent  their  doing 
further  injury;  if  occasion  require  it,  let  the  civil 
power  arrest  them  and  put  them  in  prison.  Imprison- 
ment is  a severe  enough  penalty,  because  it  prevents 
their  dangerous  propaganda:3  aut  corrigendi  sunt , ne 
pereant;  aut , ne  perimant , coercendi .4  St.  Bernard  was 
always  faithful  to  his  own  teaching,  as  we  learn  from 
his  mission  in  Languedoc.5 

1 In  Cantica , Sermo  lxiv,  n.  12. 

2 Ibid.,  n.  8. 

3 De  Consider atione , lib.  iii,  cap.  i,  n.  3. 

4 Ibid.)  cf.  Ep.  241  and  242.  For  more  details,  cf.  Vacandard, 
Vie  de  Saint  Bernard,  vol.  ii,  pp.  211-216,  461-462. 

5 Cf.  Vacandard,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  217-234. 


36 


THE  INQUISITION 


Having  ascertained  the  views  of  individual  church- 
men, we  now  turn  to  the  councils  of  the  period,  and 
find  them  voicing  the  self-same  teaching.  In  1049, 
the  Council  held  at  Rheims  by  Pope  Leo  IX  declared 
all  heretics  excommunicated,  but  said  nothing  of  any 
temporal  penalty,  nor  did  it  empower  the  secular 
princes  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  heresy.1 

The  Council  of  Toulouse  in  1119,  presided  over  by 
Calixtus  II,  and  the  General  Council  of  the  Lateran,  in 
1139,  were  a little  more  severe;  they  not  only  issued 
a solemn  bull  of  excommunication  against  heretics,  but 
ordered  the  civil  power  to  prosecute  them:  per  potestates 
exteras  coerceri  prcecipimus.2  This  order  was,  un- 
doubtedly an  answer  to  St.  Bernard’s  request  of 
Louis  VII  to  banish  Arnold  from  his  kingdom.  The 
only  penalty  referred  to  by  both  these  councils  was 
imprisonment. 

The  Council  of  Rheims  in  1148,  presided  over  by 
Eugenius  III,  did  not  even  speak  of  this  penalty,  but 
simply  forbade  secular  princes  to  give  support  or 
asylum  to  heretics.3  We  know,  moreover,  that  at  this 
council  Eon  de  TEtoile  was  merely  sentenced  to  the 
seclusion  of  a monastery. 

In  fact,  the  execution  of  heretics  which  occurred 
during  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  were  due  to 
the  impulse  of  the  moment.  As  an  historian  has 
remarked:  “ These  heretics  were  not  punished  for  & 
crime  against  the  law;  for  there  was  no  legal  crime  of 
heresy  and  no  penalty  prescribed.  But  the  men  of 

1 Cf.  Labbe,  Concilia , vol.  ix,  col.  1042. 

2 Council  of  Toulouse,  can.  3,  Labbe,  vol.  x,  col.  857;  Council 
of  Lateran,  can.  23,  ibid.,  col.  1008. 

8 Can.  18,  Labbe,  Concilia , vol.  x,  col.  1113. 


THE  INQUISITION 


37 


the  day  adopted  what  they  considered  a measure  of 
public  safety,  to  put  an  end  to  a public  danger.”  1 

Far  from  encouraging  the  people  and  the  princes  in 
their  attitude,  the  Church  through  her  bishops, 
teachers,  and  councils  continued  to  declare  that  she 
had  a horror  of  bloodshed : A domo  sacerdotis  sanguinis 
questio  remota  sit,  writes  Geroch  of  Reichersberg.2 
Peter  Cantor  also  insists  on  the  same  idea.  “ Even 
if  they  are  proved  guilty  by  the  judgment  of  God,” 
he  writes,  “ the  Cathari  ought  not  to  be  sentenced  to 
death,  because  this  sentence  is  in  a way  ecclesiastical, 
being  made  always  in  the  presence  of  a priest.  If  then 
they  are  executed,  the  priest  is  responsible  for  their 
death,  for  he  by  whose  authority  a thing  is  done  is 
responsible  therefor.”  3 

Was  excommunication  to  be  the  only  penalty  for 
heresy?  Yes,  answered  Wazo,  Leo  IX,  and  the  Council 
of  Reims  in  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century.  But 
later  on  the  growth  of  the  evil  induced  the  churchmen 
of  the  time  to  call  upon  the  aid  of  the  civil  power. 
They  thought  that  the  Church’s  excommunication 
required  a temporal  sanction.  They  therefore  called 
upon  the  princes  to  banish  heretics  from  their  domin- 
ions, and  to  imprison  those  who  refused  to  be  con- 
verted. Such  was  the  theory  of  the  twelfth  century. 

We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  penalty  of 
imprisonment,  which  was  at  first  a monastic  punish- 
ment, had  two  objects  in  view:  to  prevent  heretics 

1 Julien  Havet,  Uheresie  et  le  bras  seculier  au  moyen  dge , in  his 
(Euvres,  vol.  ii,  p.  134. 

2 De  investigatione  Antichristi , lib.  i,  cap.  xlii,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  88,  89. 

8 Verbum  abbreviation,  cap.  lxxviii,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  ccv, 

col.  231. 


38 


THE  INQUISITION 


from  spreading  their  doctrines,  and  to  give  them  an 
opportunity  of  atoning  for  their  sins.  In  the  minds 
of  the  ecclesiastical  judges,  it  possessed  a penitential, 
almost  a sacramental  character.  In  a period  when 
all  Europe  was  Catholic,  it  could  well  supplant  exile 
and  banishment,  which  were  the  severest  civil  penal- 
ties after  the  death  penalty. 


CHAPTER  IV 


FOURTH  PERIOD 

From  Gratian  to  Innocent  III 

The  Influence  of  the  Canon  Law,  and  the  Re- 
vival of  the  Roman  Law 

The  development  of  the  Canon  law  and  the  revival 
of  the  Roman  law  could  not  but  exercise  a great 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  princes  and  churchmen 
with  regard  to  the  suppression  of  heresy;  in  fact,  they 
were  the  cause  of  a legislation  of  persecution,  which 
was  adopted  by  every  country  of  Christendom. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  period,  which  we  date  from 
Gratian,1  the  prosecution  of  heresy  was  still  carried  on, 
in  a more  or  less  irregular  and  arbitrary  fashion, 
according  to  the  caprice  of  the  reigning  sovereign,  or 
the  hasty  violence  of  the  populace.  But  from  this 
time  forward  we  shall  see  it  carried  on  in  the  name 
of  both  the  canon  and  the  civil  law : secundum  canoni- 
cas  et  legitimas  sanctiones,  as  a Council  of  Avignon 
puts  it.2 

In  Germany  and  France,  especially  in  northern 
France,  the  usual  punishment  was  the  stake.  We  need 

1 The  Decree  of  Gratian  was  written  about  1140. 

2 This  council  was  held  in  1209,  d’Achery,  Spicilegium,  in-fol., 
vol.  i,  p.  704,  col.  1. 


39 


40 


THE  INQUISITION 


not  say  much  of  England,  for  heresy  seems  to  have 
made  but  one  visit  there  in  1166.  In  1160,  a German 
prince,  whose  name  is  unknown,  had  several  Cathari 
beheaded.  Others  were  burned  at  Cologne  in  1163. 
The  execution  of  the  heretics  condemned  at  Vezelai 
by  the  Abbot  of  Vezelai  and  several  bishops,  forms 
quite  a dramatic  picture. 

When  the  heretics  had  been  condemned,  the  Abbot, 
addressing  the  crowd,  said:  “ My  brethren,  what 

punishment  should  be  inflicted  upon  those  who  refuse 
to  be  converted?  ” All  replied:  “ Burn  them.” 
“ Burn  them.”  Their  wishes  were  carried  out.  Two 
abjured  their  heresy,  and  were  pardoned,  the  other 
seven  perished  at  the  stake.1 

Philip,  Count  of  Flanders,  was  particularly  cruel  in 
prosecuting  heretics.2  He  had  an  able  auxiliary  also 
in  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  Guillaume  aux  Blanches- 
Mains.  The  chronicle  of  Anchin  tells  us  that  they 
sent  to  the  stake  a great  many  nobles  and  people, 
clerics,  knights,  peasants,  young  girls,  married  women, 
and  widows,  whose  property  they  confiscated  and 
shared  between  them.3  This  occurred  in  1183.  Some 
years  before,  Archbishop  Guillaume  and  his  council 
had  sent  two  heretical  women  to  the  stake.4 

Hugh,  Bishop  of  Auxerre  (1183-1206),  prosecuted 
the  neo-Manicheans  with  equal  severity;  he  confis- 

1 Hugo  Pictav.,  Historia  Vezeliacensis  monasteriij  lib.  iv,  ad. 
finem,  Hist,  des  Gaides,  vol.  xii,  pp.  343-344. 

2 Raoul  de  Coggeshall,  in  Rerum  Britann . medii  cevi  Scriptoresf 
ed.  Stevenson,  p.  122. 

3 Sigeberti,  Continuatio  Aquicinctina , ad.  ann.  1183,  in  the 
Mon.  Germ.  SS .,  vol.  vi,  p.  421. 

4 Raoul  de  Coggeshall,  loc.  dt.\  Hist,  des  Gaules,  vol.  xviii, 
p.  92. 


THE  INQUISITION 


41 


cated  the  property  of  some,  banished  others,  and  sent 
several  to  the  stake. 

The  reign  of  Philip  Augustus  was  marked  by  many 
executions.  Eight  Cathari  were  sent  to  the  stake  at 
Troyes  in  1200,  one  at  Nevers  in  1201,  and  several 
others  at  Braisne-sur-Vesle  in  1204.  A most  famous 
case  was  the  condemnation  of  the  followers  of  the 
heretic,  Amaury  de  Beynes.  “ Priests,  clerics,  men 
and  women  belonging  to  the  sect,  were  brought  before 
a council  at  Paris;  they  were  condemned  and  handed 
over  to  the  secular  court  of  King  Philip. ” The  king 
was  absent  at  the  time.  On  his  return  he  had  them 
all  burned  outside  the  walls  of  the  city. 

In  1163  a council  of  Tours  enacted  a decree  fixing 
the  punishment  of  heresy.  Of  course  it  had  in  view 
chiefly  the  Cathari  of  Toulouse  and  Gascony:  “ If 
these  wretches  are  captured,”  it  says,  “ the  Catholic 
princes  are  to  imprison  them  and  confiscate  their 
property.”  1 

This  canon  was  applied  probably  for  the  first  time 
at  Toulouse  in  1178.  The  Bishop  began  proceedings 
against  several  heretics,  among  them  a rich  noble 
named  Pierre  Mauran,  who  was  summoned  before  his 
tribunal,  and  condemned  to  make  a pilgrimage  to  the 
Holy  Land.  His  property  was  confiscated,  although 
later  on  when  he  professed  repentance  it  was  restored 
to  him,  on  condition  that  he  dismantle  the  towers  of 
his  castles,  and  pay  the  Count  of  Toulouse  a fine  of 
five  hundred  pounds  of  silver. 

In  the  meantime  the  Cathari  increased  with  alarm- 
ing rapidity  throughout  this  region.  Count  Raymond 
V (1148-1194),  wishing  to  strike  terror  into  them, 
1Can.  4,  Labbe,  Concilia,  vol.  x,  col.  1419. 


42 


THE  INQUISITION 


enacted  a law  which  decreed  the  confiscation  of  their 
property,  and  death.  The  people  of  Toulouse  quoted 
this  law  later  on  in  a letter  to  King  Pedro  of  Aragon 
to  justify  their  sending  heretics  to  the  stake,  and  when 
the  followers  of  Simon  de  Montfort  arrived  in  southern 
France,  in  1209,  they  followed  the  example  of  Count 
Raymond  by  sending  heretics  to  the  stake  everywhere 
they  went. 

The  authenticity  of  this  law  has  been  questioned, 
on  account  of  its  unheard-of  severity.  But  Pedro  II, 
King  of  Aragon  and  Count  of  Barcelona,  enacted  a 
law  in  1197  which  was  just  as  terrible.  He  banished 
the  Waldenses  and  all  other  heretics  from  his  domin- 
ions, ordering  them  to  depart  before  Passion  Sunday 
of  the  following  year  (March  23,  1198).  After  that 
day,  every  heretic  found  in  the  kingdom  or  the  county 
was  to  be  sent  to  the  stake,  and  his  property  confis- 
cated. It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  in  the  king’s 
mind  the  stake  was  merely  a subsidiary  penalty. 

In  enacting  this  severe  law,  Pedro  of  Aragon  de- 
clared that  he  was  moved  by  zeal  for  the  public  welfare, 
and  “ had  simply  obeyed  the  canons  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Church.”  With  the  exception  of  the  death 
penalty  by  the  stake,  his  reference  to  the  canon  law 
is  perfectly  accurate.  Pope  Alexander  III,  who  had 
been  present  at  the  Council  of  Tours  in  1163,  renewed, 
at  the  Lateran  Council  in  1179,  the  decrees  already 
enacted  against  the  heretics  of  central  France.  He 
considered  the  Cathari,  the  Brabangons,  etc.,  disturbers 
of  the  public  welfare,  and  therefore  called  upon  the 
princes  to  protect  by  force  of  arms  their  Christian 
subjects  against  the  outrages  of  these  heretics.  The 
princes  were  to  imprison  all  heretics  and  confiscate 


THE  INQUISITION 


43 


their  property.  The  Pope  granted  indulgences  to  all 
who  carried  on  this  pious  work. 

In  1184,  Pope  Lucius  III,  in  union  with  the  Emperor 
Frederic  Barbarossa,  adopted  at  Verona  still  more 
vigorous  measures.  Heretics  were  to  be  excommuni- 
cated, and  then  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm,  which 
was  to  inflict  upon  them  the  punishment  they  deserved 
(animadversio  debita ).1  The  Emperor  decreed  the  im- 
perial ban  against  them. 

This  imperial  ban  was,  as  Ficker  has  pointed  out,  a 
very  severe  penalty  in  Italy;  for  it  comprised  banish- 
ment, the  confiscation  of  the  property,  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  houses  of  the  condemned,  public  infamy,  the 
inability  to  hold  public  office,  etc.  This  is  beyond  ques- 
tion the  penalty  the  King  of  Aragon  alluded  to  in  his 
enactment.  The  penalty  of  the  stake  which  he  added, 
although  in  conformity  with  the  Roman  law,  was  an 
innovation. 

The  pontificate  of  Innocent  III,  which  began  in 
1198,  marks  a pause  in  the  development  of  the  Church's 
penal  legislation  against  heresy.  Despite  his  prodi- 
gious activity,  this  Pope  never  dreamt  of  enacting  new 
laws,  but  did  his  best  to  enforce  the  laws  then  in  vogue, 
and  to  stimulate  the  zeal  of  both  princes  and  magis- 
trates in  the  suppression  of  heresy. 

Hardly  had  he  ascended  the  pontifical  throne  when 
he  sent  legates  to  southern  France,  and  wrote  urgent 
letters  full  of  apostolic  zeal  to  the  Archbishops  of  Auch 
and  Aix,  the  Bishop  of  Narbonne,  and  the  King  of 
France.  These  letters,  as  well  as  his  instructions  to 
the  legates,  are  similar  in  tone:  “ Use  against  heretics 

1 Canon  27,  inserted  in  the  Decretals  of  Gregory  IX,  lib.  v,  tit. 
vii,  De  Hoeretids , cap.  ix. 


44 


THE  INQUISITION 


the  spiritual  sword  of  excommunication,  and  if  this 
does  not  prove  effective,  use  the  material  sword.  The 
civil  laws  decree  banishment  and  confiscation;  see  that 
they  are  carried  out.”  1 

At  this  time  the  Cathari  were  living  not  only  in  the 
cities  of  Languedoc  and  Provence,  but  some  had  even 
entered  the  papal  States,  v.  g.,  at  Orvieto  and  Viterbo. 
The  Pope  himself  went  to  these  cities  to  combat  the 
evil,  and  at  once  saw  the  necessity  of  enacting  special 
laws  against  them.  They  may  be  read  in  his  letters 
of  March  25,  1199,  and  September  22,  1207,  which 
form  a special  code  for  the  use  of  the  princes  and  the 
podesta.  Heretics  were  to  be  branded  with  infamy; 
they  were  forbidden  to  be  electors,  to  hold  public 
office,  to  be  members  of  the  city  councils,  to  appear  in 
court  or  testify,  to  make  a will  or  to  receive  an  inheri- 
tance; if  officials,  all  their  acts  were  declared  null  and 
void;  and  finally  their  property  was  to  be  confiscated. 

“ In  the  territories  subject  to  our  temporal  juris- 
diction,” adds  the  Pope,  “ we  declare  their  property 
confiscated;  in  other  places  we  order  the  podesta  and 
the  secular  princes  to  do  the  same,  and  we  desire  and 
command  this  law  enforced  under  penalty  of  ecclesi- 
astical censures.”  2 

We  are  not  at  all  surprised  at  such  drastic  measures, 
when  we  consider  the  agreement  made  by  Lucius  III 
with  Frederic  Barbarossa,  at  Verona.  But  we  wish 
to  call  attention  to  the  reasons  that  Innocent  III 
adduced  to  justify  his  severity,  on  account  of  the  seri- 
ous consequences  they  entailed.  “ The  civil  law,”  says 

1 Letters  of  Innocent  III  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  ccxiv-ccxvi. 

2 Letter  of  March  25,  1199,  to  the  magistrates  and  people 
of  Viterbo;  constitution  of  September  23,  1207,  Ep.  x,  130. 


THE  INQUISITION 


45 


the  Pope,  “ punishes  traitors  with  confiscation  of  their 
property  and  death ; it  is  only  out  of  kindness  that  the 
lives  of  their  children  are  spared.  All  the  more  then 
should  we  excommunicate  and  confiscate  the  property 
of  those  who  are  traitors  to  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ; 
for  it  is  an  infinitely  greater  sin  to  offend  the  Divine 
Majesty  than  to  attack  the  majesty  of  the  sovereign.”  1 

Whether  this  comparison  be  justified  or  not,  it  is 
certainly  most  striking.  Later  on  Frederic  II  and 
others  will  quote  it  to  justify  their  severity. 

The  Lateran  Council  in  1215  made  the  laws  of  Inno- 
cent III  canons  of  the  universal  Church;  it  declared 
all  heretics  excommunicated,  and  delivered  them  over 
to  the  State  to  receive  due  punishment.  This  anim- 
adversio  debita  entailed  banishment  with  all  its  con- 
sequences and  confiscation.  The  council  also  legis- 
lated against  the  abettors  of  heresy,  even  if  they  were 
princes,  and  ordered  the  despoiling  of  all  rulers  who 
neglected  to  enforce  the  ecclesiastical  law  in  their 
domains.2 

In  practice,  Innocent  III,  although  very  severe  to- 
wards obdurate  heretics,  was  extremely  kind  to  the 
ignorant  and  heretics  in  good  faith.  While  he  banished 
the  Patarins  from  Viterbo,3  and  razed  their  houses 
to  the  ground,  he  at  the  same  time  protected,  against 
the  tyranny  of  an  archpriest  of  Verona,  a society  of 
mystics,  the  Humiliati,  whose  orthodoxy  was  rather 
doubtful.  When,  after  the  massacre  of  the  Albigenses, 
Pope  Innocent  was  called  upon  to  apply  the  canon  law 

1 Letter  of  March  25,  1199,  to  the  magistrates  of  Viterbo,  Ep. 

ii,  1. 

2 Labbe,  Concilia , vol.  xi,  col.  148-150;  Decretales , cap.  xiii, 
De  hcereticis , lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 

3 Gesta  Innocentii , cap,  cxxiii,  Migne,  P,  L.,  vol,  ccxiv,  col.  clxi. 


46 


THE  INQUISITION 


in  the  case  of  Raymond,  Count  of  Toulouse,  and  to 
transfer  the  patrimony  of  his  father  to  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort,  he  was  the  first  to  draw  back  from  such  injustice. 
Although  a framer  of  severe  laws  against  heresy,  he 
was  ready  to  grant  dispensations,  when  occasion 
arose. 

We  must  remember  also  that  the  laws  he  enacted 
were  not  at  all  excessive  compared  with  the  strict 
Roman  law,  or  even  with  the  practice  then  in  vogue  in 
France  and  Germany.  It  has  been  justly  said:  “ The 
laws  and  letters  of  Innocent  III  never  once  mention 
the  death  penalty  for  heresy.  He  merely  decrees 
against  them  banishment,  and  the  confiscation  of  their 
property.  When  he  speaks  of  having  recourse  to  the 
secular  arm,  he  means  simply  the  force  required  to 
carry  out  the  laws  of  banishment  enacted  by  his  penal 
code.  This  code,  which  seems  so  pitiless  to  us,  was  in 
reality  at  that  time  a great  improvement  in  the  treat- 
ment of  heretics.  For  its  special  laws  prevented  the 
frequent  outbreaks  of  popular  vengeance,  which 
punished  not  only  confessed  heretics,  but  also  mere 
suspects.”  1 

In  fact,  the  development  in  the  methods  of  suppres- 
sing heresy  from  the  eleventh  century,  ends  with  Inno- 
cent III  in  a code  that  was  far  more  kindly  than  the 
cruel  customs  in  vogue  at  the  time. 

The  death  penalty  of  the  stake  was  common  in 

1 Luchaire,  Innocent  III,  et  la  croisade  des  Albigeois,  pp.  57, 
58.  Julien  Havet  also  says:  “ We  must  in  justice  say  of 
Innocent  III  that,  if  he  did  bitterly  prosecute  heretics,  and  every- 
where put  them  under  the  ban,  he  never  demanded  the  inflic- 
tion of  the  death  penalty.  Ficker  has  brought  this  out  very 
clearly.”  L’h&r6sie  et  le  bras  seculier , p.  165,  n.  3.  For  Ficker’s 
view,  cf.  op.  cit .,  pp.  189-192. 


THE  INQUISINION 


47 


France  in  the  twelfth  century,  and  in  the  beginning  of 
the  thirteenth.  Most  of  the  executions  were  due  to 
the  passions  of  the  mob,  although  the  Roman  law  was 
in  part  responsible.  Anselm  of  Lucca  and  the  author 
of  the  Panormia  (Ivo  of  Chartres?)  had  copied  word 
for  word  the  fifth  law  of  the  title  De  Hceretids  of  the 
Justinian  code,  under  the  rubric:  De  edido  impera- 
torum  in  damnationem  hcereticorum}  This  law  which 
decreed  the  death  penalty  against  the  Manicheans, 
seemed  strictly  applicable  to  the  Cathari,  who  were 
regarded  at  the  time  as  the  direct  heirs  of  Manicheism. 
Gratian,  in  his  Decree,  maintained  the  views  of  St. 
Augustine  on  the  penalties  of  heresy,  viz.,  fine  and 
banishment.2  But  some  of  his  commentators,  espe- 
cially Rufinus,  Johannes,  Teutonicus,  and  an  anony- 
mous writer  whose  work  is  inserted  in  Huguccio’s  great 
Summa  of  the  Decree,  declared  that  impenitent  heretics 
might  and  even  ought  to  be  put  to  death. 

These  different  works  appeared  before  the  Lateran 
Council  of  1215. 3 They  are  a good  indication  of 
the  mind  of  the  time.  We  may  well  ask  whether  the 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  the  Count  of  Flanders,  Philip 
Augustus,  Raymond  of  Toulouse,  and  Pedro  of  Aragon, 
who  authorized  the  use  of  the  stake  for  heretics,  did 
not  think  they  were  following  the  example  of  the  first 
Christian  emperors.  We  must,  however,  admit  that 
there  is  no  direct  allusion  to  the  early  imperial  legis- 
lation either  in  their  acts  or  their  writings.  Probably 

1 Tan  on,  op.  cit .,  pp.  453-454. 

2 Decretum,  2 Pars,  Causa  xxiii,  quest.  4,  6,  7. 

3 The  collection  of  Anselm  of  Lucca  is  prior  to  1080.  The 
Panormia  was  written  about  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century; 
the  Decree  about  1140;  the  three  commentaries  were  written 
a little  before  1215. 


48 


THE  INQUISITION 


they  were  more  influenced  by  the  customs  of  the  time 
than  by  the  written  law. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  Gratian,  who  with  St.  Augustine 
mentioned  only  fine  and  banishment  as  the  penalties 
for  heresy,  was  followed  for  some  time.  We  learn  from 
Benencasa’s  S umma  of  the  Decree  that  heretics  were 
punished  not  by  death,  but  by  banishment  and  con- 
fiscation of  their  property.1 

The  Councils  of  Tours  and  Lateran  also  decreed 
confiscation,  but  for  banishment  they  substituted  im- 
prisonment, a penalty  unknown  to  the  Roman  law. 
The  Council  of  Lateran  appealed  to  the  authority  of 
St.  Leo  the  Great,  to  compel  Christian  princes  to 
prosecute  heresy.2 

From  the  time  of  Lucius  III,  owing  to  the  influence 
of  the  lawyers,  the  two  penalties  of  banishment  and 
confiscation  prevailed.  Innocent  III  extended  them  to 
the  universal  Church. 

This  was  undoubtedly  a severer  penal  legislation 
than  that  of  the  preceding  age.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  was  an  effective  barrier  against  the  infliction 
of  the  death  penalty,  which  had  become  so  common  in 
many  parts  of  Christendom. 

Besides,  during  this  period,  the  Church  used  vigorous 
measures  only  against  obdurate  heretics,  who  were  also 
disturbers  of  the  public  peace.3  They  alone  w’ere 
handed  over  to  the  secular  arm;  if  they  abjured  their 

1 Biblioth.  Nation .,  Ms.  3892,  Summa  of  Benencasa:  41,  cap. 
23,  q.  4,  Non  invenitur. 

2 Canon  27,  Labbe,  Concilia , vol.  x,  col.  1522;  Leonis,  Epist . 
xv,  ad  Turribium,  Migne,  Pat.  lat.,  vol.  liv.  col,  679-680. 

3 Innocent  III  merely  condemned  to  prison  in  a monastery 
the  heretical  abbot  of  Nevers;  cf.  letter  of  June  19,  1199,  to  a 
cardinal  and  a bishop  of  Paris.  Ep.  ii,  99. 


THE  INQUISITION 


49 


heresy,  they  were  at  once  pardoned,  provided  they 
freely  accepted  the  penance  imposed  upon  them.1 
This  kind  treatment,  it  was  true,  was  not  to  last. 
It,  however,  deserves  special  notice,  for  the  honor  of 
those  who  preached  and  practiced  it. 

1 Cf.  Canon  27  of  the  Lateran  Council  (1179),  which  we  have 
quoted  above,  and  which  is  inserted  in  the  Decretals  of  Gregory 
x,  cap.  ix,  De  hcereticis , lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 


CHAPTER  V 


The  Catharan  or  Albigensian  Heresy — Its  Anti- 
Catholic  and  Anti-Social  Character 

While  Popes  Alexander  III,  Lucius  III,  and  Inno- 
cent III,  were  adopting  such  vigorous  measures,  the 
Catharan  heresy  by  its  rapid  increase  caused  wide- 
spread alarm  throughout  Christendom.  Let  us  en- 
deavor to  obtain  some  insight  into  its  character,  before 
we  describe  the  Inquisition,  which  was  destined  to 
destroy  it. 

The  dominant  heresy  of  the  period  was  the  Albi- 
gensian or  Catharan  heresy; 1 it  was  related  to  Oriental 
Manicheism 2 through  the  Paulicians  and  the  Bogo- 
miles, who  professed  a dualistic  theory  on  the  origin  of 
the  world. 

In  the  tenth  century,  the  Empress  Theodora,  who 
detested  the  Paulicians,  had  one  hundred  thousand  of 
them  massacred ; the  Emperor  Alexis  Comnenus  (about 
1118),  persecuted  the  Bogomiles  in  like  manner.  Many, 
therefore,  of  both  sects  went  to  western  Europe,  where 
they  finally  settled,  and  began  to  spread. 

As  early  as  1167,  they  held  a council  at  St.  Felix  de 
Caraman,  near  Toulouse,  under  the  presidency  of  one 

1 The  heretics  called  themselves  “ Cathari or  “the  Pure ” 
They  wished  thereby  to  denote  especially  their  horror  of  all 
sexual  relations,  says  the  monk  Egbert : Sermones  contra  Catharos , 
in  Migne,  P.  L.,  cxcv,  col.  13. 

2 On  the  origin  of  the  Manichean  heresy,  cf.  Duchesne,  Histoire 
ancienne  de  VEglise , pp.  555,  556. 

50 


THE  INQUISITION 


51 


of  their  leaders,  Pope  or  perhaps  only  Bishop  Niketas 
(Niquinta)  of  Constantinople.  Other  bishops  of  the 
sect  were  present:  Mark,  who  had  charge  of  all  the 
churches  of  Lombardy,  Tuscany,  and  the  Marches  of 
Treviso;  Robert  de  Sperone,  who  governed  a church 
in  the  north,  and  Sicard  Cellerier,  Bishop  of  the  Church 
of  Albi.  They  appointed  Bernard  Raymond,  Bishop 
of  Toulouse,  Guiraud  Mercier,  Bishop  of  Carcassonne, 
and  Raymond  of  Casalis,  Bishop  of  Val  d’Aran,  in  the 
diocese  of  Comminges.  Such  an  organization  certainly 
indicates  the  extraordinary  development  of  the  heresy 
about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century. 

About  the  year  1200  its  progress  was  still  more 
alarming.  Bonacursus,  a Catharan  bishop  converted 
to  Catholicism,  writes  about  1190:  “ Behold  the  cities, 
towns  and  homes  filled  with  these  false  prophets.”  1 
Csesarius,  of  Heisterbach,  tells  us  that  a few  years  later 
there  were  Cathari  in  about  one  thousand  cities,2 
especially  in  Lombardy  and  Languedoc. 

There  were  at  least  seven  to  eight  hundred  of  “ the 
Perfected  ” in  Languedoc  alone;  and  to  obtain  ap- 
proximately the  total  number  of  the  sect,  we  must 
multiply  this  number  by  twenty  or  even  more.3 

Of  course,  perfect  unity  did  not  exist  among  the 
Cathari.  The  different  names  by  which  they  were 
known  clearly  indicate  certain  differences  of  doctrine 
among  them.  Some,  like  the  Cathari  of  Alba  and 
Desenzano,  taught  with  the  Paulicians  an  absolute 
dualism,  affirming  that  all  things  created  came  from 

1 Manifestatio  hceresis  Catharorum , in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  cciv, 
col.  778. 

2 Dialogi , Antwerp,  1604,  p.  289. 

* This  is  Dollinger’s  estimate,  Beitrdge,  vol.  i,  pp.  212,  213. 


52 


THE  INQUISITION 


two  principles,  the  one  essentially  good,  and  the  other 
essentially  bad.  Two  other  groups,  the  Concorre- 
zenses  and  the  Bagolenses,  like  the  ancient  Gnostics, 
held  a modified  form  of  dualism;  they  pretended  that 
the  evil  spirit  had  so  marred  the  Creator’s  work,  that 
matter  had  become  the  instrument  of  evil  in  the  world. 
Still  they  agreed  with  the  pronounced  dualists  in  nearly 
all  their  doctrines  and  observances;  their  few  theo- 
retical differences  were  scarcely  appreciable  in 
practice.1 

Still,  contemporary  writers  called  them  by  different 
names.  In  Italy  they  were  confounded  with  the  ortho- 
dox Patarins  and  Arnaldists  of  Milan;  which  explains 
the  frequent  use  of  the  word  Patareni  in  the  consti- 
tutions of  Frederic  II,  and  other  documents. 

The  Arnaldists  or  Arnoldists  and  the  Speronistse, 
were  the  disciples  of  Arnold  of  Brescia,  and  the  heret- 
ical Bishop  Sperone.  Although  the  chief  center  of  the 
Cathari  in  France  was  Toulouse  and  not  Albi,  they 
were  called  Albigeois  (Albigenses),  and  Tisserands 
(Texerants),  because  many  were  weavers  by  trade; 
Arians , because  of  their  denial  of  Christ’s  divinity; 
Paulicians,  which  was  corrupted  into  Poplicani,  Pub - 
licani , Piphes  and  Piples  (Flanders) ; Bulgarians  ( Bui - 
gari)j  from  their  origin,  which  became  in  the  mouths 
of  the  people  of  Bugari , Bulgri,  and  Bugres . In  fact 
about  1200,  nearly  all  the  heretics  of  western  Europe 
were  considered  Cathari. 

Catharism  was  chiefly  a negative  heresy;  it  denied 
the  doctrines,  hierarchy  and  worship  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  well  as  the  essential  rights  of  the  State. 


1 On  the  Catharan  doctrines,  cf.  Dollinger’s  Beitrdge. 


THE  INQUISITION 


These  neo-Manicheans  denied  that  the  Rorri 
Church  represented  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  Popes 
were  not  the  successors  of  St.  Peter,  but  rather  the  suc- 
cessors of  Constantine.  St.  Peter  never  came  to  Rome. 
The  relics  which  were  venerated  in  the  Constantinian 
basilica,  were  the  bones  of  some  one  who  died  in  the 
third  century;  they  were  not  relics  of  the  Prince  of 
the  Apostles.  Constantine  unfortunately  sanctioned 
this  fraud,  by  conferring  upon  the  Roman  pontiff  an 
immense  domain,  together  with  the  prestige  that 
accompanies  temporal  authority.1  How  could  anyone 
recognize  under  the  insignia,  the  purple  mantle,  and 
the  crown  of  the  successors  of  St.  Sylvester,  a disciple  of 
Jesus  Christ?  Christ  had  no  place  where  to  lay  His 
head,  whereas  the  Popes  lived  in  a palace!  Christ 
rebuked  worldly  dominion,  while  the  Popes  claimed 
it!  What  had  the  Roman  curia  with  its  thirst  for 
riches  and  honors  in  common  with  the  gospel  of  Christ? 
What  were  these  archbishops,  primates,  cardinals, 
archdeacons,  monks,  canons,  Dpminicans,  and  Friars 
Minor  but  the  Pharisees  of  old!  The  priests  placed 
heavy  burdens  upon  the  faithful  people,  and  they 
themselves  did  not  touch  them  with  the  tips  of  their 
fingers;  they  received  tithes  from  the  fields  and  flocks; 
they  ran  after  the  heritage  of  widows;  all  practices 
which  Christ  condemned  in  the  Pharisees, 

And  yet,  withal,  they  dared  persecute  humble  souls 
who,  by  their  pure  life,  tried  to  realize  the  perfect  ideal 

1 The  Middle  Ages  believed  firmly  in  the  donation  of  Con- 
stantine. It  was,  however,  questioned  by  Wetzel,  a disciple  of 
Arnold  of  Brescia,  in  1152,  in  a letter  to  Frederic  Barbarossa, 
Martene  and  Durand,  Veterum  scriptorum  . . . amplissima 
collectio , Paris,  1724,  vol.  ii,  col.  554-557. 


54 


THE  INQUISITION 


\ r 
a/ 


proposed  by  Christ!  These  persecutors  were  not  the 
true  disciples  of  Jesus.  The  Roman  Church  was  the 
woman  of  the  Apocalypse,1  drunk  with  the  blood  of 
the  Saints,  and  the  Pope  was  Antichrist. 

The  sacraments  of  the  Church  were  a mere  figment 
of  the  imagination.  The  Cathari  made  one  sacrament 
out  of  Baptism,  Confirmation,  Penance  and  Eucharist, 
which  they  called  the  consolamentum;  they  denied  the 
real  presence  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  they 
repudiated  marriage. 

Baptism  of  water  was  to  them  an  empty  ceremony, 
as  valueless  as  the  baptism  of  John.  Christ  had  un- 
doubtedly said:  “ Unless  a man  be  born  again  of  water 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  King- 
dom of  God.”  2 But  the  acts  of  the  Apostles  proved 
that  baptism  was  a mere  ceremony,  for  they  declared 
that  the  Samaritans,  although  baptized,  had  not 
thereby  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  Whom  alone  the 
soul  is  purified  from  sin.3 

The  Catholic  Church  also  erred  greatly  in  teaching 
infant  baptism.  As  their  faculties  were  undeveloped, 
infants  could  not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Cathari 
— at  least  to  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century — 
did  not  confer  the  consolamentum  upon  newly  born 
infants.  According  to  them,  the  Church  could  only 
abandon  these  little  ones  to  their  unhappy  destiny. 
If  they  died,  they  were  either  forever  lost,  or,  as  others 
taught,  condemned  to  undergo  successive  incarnations, 
until  they  received  the  consolamentum , which  classed 
them  with  “ the  Perfected.” 


1 Apoc.  vii,  3, 18. 

2 John  iii.  5. 

3 Acts  i.  5;  viii.  14-17. 


THE  INQUISITION 


55 


It  was  preposterous  to  imagine  that  Christ  wished  to 
change  bread  and  wine  into  His  Body  in  the  Eucha- 
rist. The  Cathari  considered  transubstantiation  as  the 
worst  of  abominations,  since  matter,  in  every  form, 
was  the  work  of  the  Evil  Spirit.  They  interpreted  the 
Gospel  texts  in  a figurative  sense:  “ This  is  My  Body,” 
they  said,  simply  means:  “ This  represents  My  Body,” 
thus  anticipating  the  teaching  of  Carlstadt  and  Zwingli. 
They  all  agreed  in  denouncing  Catholics  for  daring  to 
claim  that  they  really  partook  of  the  Body  of  Christ, 
as  if  Christ  could  enter  a man’s  stomach,  to  say 
nothing  worse;  or  as  if  Christ  would  expose  Himself 
to  be  devoured  by  rats  and  mice. 

The  Cathari,  denying  the  real  presence  of  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  rejected  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass.  God,  according  to  them,  repudiated  all  sacri- 
fices. Did  He  not  teach  us  through  His  prophet  Osee: 
“ I desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice.”  1 

The  Lord’s  Supper  which  the  Apostles  ate  so  often 
was  something  altogether  different  from  the  Roman 
Mass.  They  knew  nothing  of  sacerdotal  vestments, 
stone  altars  with  shining  candelabra,  incense,  hymns, 
and  chantings.  They  did  not  worship  in  an  immense 
building  called  a church — a word  which  should  be 
applied  exclusively  to  the  assembly  of  the  saints. 

The  Cathari,  in  their  hatred  of  Catholic  piety,  railed 
in  the  most  abusive  language  against  the  veneration 
of  images,  and  especially  of  the  cross.  The  images 
and  statues  of  the  saints  were  to  them  nothing  but 
idols,  which  ought  to  be  destroyed.  The  cross  on 
which  Jesus  died  should  be  hated  rather  than  rever- 


1 Osee  vi.  6. 


56 


THE  INQUISITION 


enced.  Some  of  them,  moreover,  denied  that  Jesus 
had  been  really  crucified;  they  held  that  a demon 
died,  or  feigned  to  die  in  His  stead.  Even  those  who 
believed  in  the  reality  of  the  Saviour’s  crucifixion  made 
this  very  belief  a reason  for  condemning  the  veneration 
of  the  cross.  What  man  is  there,  they  said,  who  could 
see  a loved  one,  for  example  a father,  die  upon  a cross, 
and  not  feel  ever  after  a deep  hatred  of  this  instru- 
ment of  torture?  The  cross,  therefore,  should  not  be 
reverenced,  but  despised,  insulted  and  spat  upon. 
One  of  them  even  said:  “I  would  gladly  hew  the 
cross  to  pieces  with  an  axe,  and  throw  it  into  the 
fire  to  make  the  pot  boil.” 

Not  only  were  the  Cathari  hostile  to  the  Church 
and  her  divine  worship,  but  they  were  also  in  open 
revolt  against  the  State,  and  its  rights. 

The  feudal  society  rested  entirely  upon  the  oath  of 
fealty  (jusjurandum) , which  was  the  bond  of  its 
strength  and  solidity. 

According  to  the  Cathari,  Christ  taught  that  it  was 
sinful  to  take  an  oath,  and  that  the  speech  of  every 
Christian  should  be  yes,  yes;  no,  no.1  Nothing, 
therefore,  could  induce  them  to  take  an  oath. 

The  authority  of  the  State,  even  when  Christian, 
appeared  to  them,  uncertain  respects,  very  doubtful. 
Had  not  Christ  questioned  Peter,  saying:  “ What  is 
thy  opinion,  Simon?  The  kings  of  the  earth,  of  whom 
do  they  receive  tribute  or  custom?  of  their  own 
children,  or  of  strangers?”  Peter  replied:  “ Of 

strangers.”  Jesus  said  to  him:  “ Then  are  the  children 
free  (of  every  obligation).”  2 

1 Matt.  v.  37;  James  v.  12. 

2 Matt.  xvii.  24,  25.  ^ 


THE  INQUISITION 


57 


The  Cathari  quoted  these  words  to  justify  their 
refusal  of  allegiance  to  princes.  Were  they  not  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  whom  the  truth  had  made  free?  Some 
of  them  not  only  disputed  the  lawfulness  of  taxation, 
but  went  so  far  as  to  condone  stealing,  provided  the 
thief  had  done  no  injury  to  “ Believers.”  1 

Some  of  the  Cathari  admitted  the  authority  of  the 
State,  but  denied  its  right  to  inflict  capital  punish- 
ment. “ It  is  not  God’s  will,”  said  Pierre  Garsias, 
“ that  human  justice  condemn  any  one  to  death;  ” and 
when  one  of  the  Cathari  became  consul  of  Toulouse, 
he  wrote  to  remind  him  of  this  absolute  law.  But  the 
Summa  contra  hcereticos  asserts:  “ all  the  Catharan  sects 
taught  that  the  public  prosecution  of  crime  was  unjust, 
and  that  no  man  had  a right  to  administer  justice;  ” 2 
a teaching  which  denied  the  State’s  right  to 
punish. 

The  Cathari  interpreted  literally  the  words  of  Christ 
to  Peter:  “ All  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with 
the  sword,” 3 and  applied  the  commandment  Non 
occides  absolutely.  “ In  no  instance,”  they  said,  “ has 
one  the  right  to  kill  another;  ” 4 neither  the  internal 
welfare  of  a country,  nor  its  external  interests  can 
justify  murder.  War  is  never  lawful.  The  soldier 
defending  his  country  is  just  as  much  a murderer  as 
the  most  common  criminal.  It  was  not  any  special 

1 Contrary  to  the  Catholic  teaching,  the  Cathari  absolved 
those  who  stole  from  “ non-believers,”  without  obliging  them 
to  make  restitution.  Dollinger,  Beitrtige,  vol.  ii,  pp.  248,  249; 
cf.  pp.  245,  246. 

2 Summa  contra  hcereticos.  ed.  Douais,  p.  133,  Moneta,  op.  cit., 
p.  513. 

3 Matt.  xxvi.  52. 

4 Cf.  Dollinger,  Beitrage , vol.  ii,  p.  199. 


58 


THE  INQUISITION 


aversion  to  the  crusades,  but  their  horror  of  war  in 
general,  that  made  the  Cathari  declare  the  preachers 
of  the  crusades  murderers. 

These  anti-Catholic,  anti-patriotic,  and  anti-social 
theories  were  only  the  negative  side  of  Catharism. 
Let  us  now  ascertain  what  they  substituted  for  the 
Catholic  doctrines  they  denied. 

Catharism,  as  we  have  already  hinted,  was  a hodge- 
podge of  pagan  dualism  and  Gospel  teaching,  given  to 
the  world  as  a sort  of  reformed  Christianity. 

Human  souls,  spirits  fallen  from  heaven  into  a 
material  body  which  is  the  work  of  the  Evil  Spirit, 
were  subject  on  this  earth  to  a probation,  which  was 
ended  by  Christ,  or  rather  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
were  set  free  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  secret 
of  wffiich  had  been  committed  to  the  true  Church  by 
the  disciples  of  Jesus. 

This  Church  had  its  rulers,  the  Bishops,  and  its 
members  who  are  called  “ the  Perfected,”  “ the  Con- 
soled/’ and  “ the  Believers.” 

We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  episcopate  of  the 
Catharan  hierarchy.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Bishop 
was  always  surrounded  by  three  dignitaries,  the  Filius 
Major , the  Filius  Minor , and  the  Deacon.  The  Bishop 
had  charge  of  the  most  important  religious  ceremonies: 
the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  initiation  or  consola- 
mentum , the  breaking  of  bread  which  replaced  the 
Eucharist,  and  the  liturgical  prayers  such  as  the 
recitation  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer.  When  he  was  absent, 
the  Filius  Major , the  Filius  Minor , or  the  Deacon  took 
his  place.  It  was  seldom,  however,  that  these  dig- 
nitaries traveled  alone;  the  Bishop  was  always  accom- 
panied by  his  Deacon,  who  served  as  his  socius . 


THE  INQUISITION 


59 


One  joined  the  Church  by  promising  (the  Con - 
venenza)  to  renounce  the  Catholic  faith,  and  to  receive 
the  Catharan  initiation  (the  consolamentum) , at  least 
at  the  hour  of  death.  This  was  the  first  step  on  the 
road  to  perfection.  Those  who  agreed  to  make  it  were 
called  “ the  Believers.”  Their  obligations  were  few. 
They  were  not  bound  to  observe  the  severe  Catharan 
fasts,  which  we  will  mention  later  on.  They  could 
live  in  the  world  like  other  mortals,  and  were  even 
allowed  to  eat  meat  and  to  marry.  Their  chief  duty 
was  “ to  venerate  ” “ the  Perfected,”  each  time  they 
entered  their  presence.  They  genuflected,  and  pros- 
trated themselves  three  times,  saying  each  time  as  they 
rose,  “ Give  us  your  blessing;  ” the  third  time  they 
added:  “ Good  Christians,  give  us  God’s  blessing  and 
yours;  pray  God  that  He  preserve  us  from  an  evil 
death,  and  bring  us  to  a good  end!  ” The  Perfected 
replied:  “ Receive  God’s  blessing  and  ours;  may  God 
bless  you,  preserve  you  from  an  evil  death,  and  bring 
you  to  a good  end.”  If  these  heretics  were  asked  why 
they  made  others  venerate  them  in  this  manner,  they 
replied  that  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  within  them  gave 
them  the  right  to  such  homage.  The  Believers  were 
always  required  to  pay  this  extraordinary  mark  of 
respect.  In  fact  it  was  a sine  qua  non  of  their  being 
admitted  to  the  Convenenza. 

The  Convenenza  was  not  merely  an  external  bond, 
uniting  “ the  Believers  ” and  “ the  Perfected,”  but  it 
was  also  an  earnest  of  eternal  salvation.  It  assured 
the  future  destiny  of  “ the  Believers;  ” it  gave  them 
the  right  to  receive  the  consolamentum  on  their  death- 
bed. This  remitted  all  the  sins  of  their  life.  Only 
one  thing  could  deprive  them  of  “ this  good  end,  ” 


60 


THE  INQUISITION 


viz.,  the  absence  of  one  of  the  Perfected,  who  alone 
could  lay  hands  upon  them. 

Those  who  died  without  the  Catharan  consolamentum 
were  either  eternally  lost,  or  condemned  to  begin  life 
anew  with  another  chance  of  becoming  one  of  “ the 
good  men.”  These  transmigrations  of  the  soul  were 
rather  numerous.  The  human  soul  did  not  always 
pass  directly  from  the  body  of  a man  into  the  body  of 
another  man.  It  occasionally  entered  into  the  bodies 
of  animals,  like  the  ox  and  the  ass.  The  Cathari  were 
wont  to  tell  the  story  of  “ a good  Christian,”  one  of 
“ the  Perfected,”  who  remembered,  in  a previous  exist- 
ence as  a horse,  having  lost  his  shoe  in  a certain  place 
between  two  stones,  as  he  was  running  swiftly  under 
his  master’s  spur.  When  he  became  a man  he  was 
curious  enough  to  hunt  for  it,  and  he  found  it  in  the 
self-same  spot.  Such  humiliating  transmigrations  were 
undoubtedly  rather  rare.  A woman  named  Sybil, 
“ a Believer  ” and  later  on  one  of  “ the  Perfected,” 
remembered  having  been  a queen  in  a prior  existence. 

What  the  Convenenza  promised,  the  Catharan  initi- 
ation or  consolamentum  gave;  the  first  made  “ Be- 
lievers,” and  predisposed  souls  to  sanctity;  the  second 
made  “ the  Perfected,”  and  conferred  sanctity  with 
all  its  rights  and  prerogatives. 

The  consolamentum  required  a preparation  which 
we  may  rightly  compare  with  the  catechumenate  of  the 
early  Christians. 

This  probation  usually  lasted  one  year.  It  consisted 
in  an  honest  attempt  to  lead  the  life  of  “the  Perfected,” 
and  chiefly  in  keeping  their  three  “ lents,”  abstaining 
from  meat,  milk-food  and  eggs.  It  was  therefore  called 
the  time  of  abstinence  (abstinentia) . One  of  “ the  Per- 


THE  INQUISITION 


61 


fected  ” was  appointed  by  the  Church  to  report  upon 
the  life  of  the  postulant,  who  daily  had  to  venerate 
his  superior,  according  to  the  Catharan  rite. 

After  this  probation,  came  the  ceremony  of  “ the  de- 
livery ” ( traditio ) of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  A number 
of  “ the  Perfected  ” were  always  present.  The  highest 
dignitary,  the  Bishop  or  “ the  Ancient,”  made  the 
candidate  a lengthy  speech,  which  has  come  down 
to  us: 

“ Understand,”  he  said,  “ that  when  you  appear 
before  the  Church  of  God  you  are  in  the  presence  of 
the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  Scrip- 
tures prove,”  etc.  Then,  having  repeated  the  Lord's 
Prayer  to  “ the  Believer  ” word  for  word,  and  having 
explained  its  meaning,  he  continued:  “ We  deliver  to 
you  this  holy  prayer,  that  you  may  receive  it  from  us, 
from  God,  and  from  the  Church,  that  you  may  have 
the  right  to  say  it  all  your  life,  day  and  night,  alone 
and  in  company,  and  that  you  may  never  eat  or  drink 
without  first  saying  it.  If  you  omit  it,  you  must  do 
penance.”  The  Believer  replied:  “ I receive  it  from 
you  and  from  the  Church.”  1 

After  these  words  came  the  Abrenuntiatio . At  the 
Catholic  baptism,  the  catechumen  renounced  Satan, 
with  his  works  and  pomps.  According  to  the  Catharan 
ritual,  the  Catholic  Church  was  Satan. 

“ The  Perfected  ” said  to  the  Believer:  “ Friend,  if 
you  wish  to  be  one  of  us,  you  must  renounce  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  Rome;”  and  he  replied:  “ I 
do  renounce  them.” 

— Do  you  renounce  that  cross  made  with  chrism 
upon  your  breast,  head,  and  shoulders? 

1 Cledat,  Rituel  Cathare,  pp.  xi-xv. 


62 


THE  INQUISITION 


- — I do  renounce  it. 

— Do  you  believe  that  the  water  of  Baptism  is  effi- 
cacious for  salvation? 

— No,  I do  not  believe  it. 

— Do  you  renounce  the  veil,  which  the  priest  placed 
upon  your  head,  after  you  were  baptized? 

— I do  renounce  it.1 

Again  the  Bishop  addressed  “ the  Believer  ” to  im- 
press upon  him  the  new  duties  involved  in  his  receiving 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Those  who  were  present  prayed  God 
to  pardon  the  candidate’s  sins,  and  then  venerated 
“ the  Perfected  ” (the  ceremony  of  the  Parda ).  After 
the  Bishop’s  prayer,  “ May  God  bless  thee,  make  thee 
a good  Christian,  and  grant  thee  a good  end,”  the 
candidate  made  a solemn  promise  faithfully  to  fulfill 
the  duties  he  had  learned  during  his  probatio.  The 
words  of  his  promise  are  to  be  found  in  Sacconi:  “ I 
promise  to  devote  my  life  to  God  and  to  the  Gospel, 
never  to  lie  or  swear,  never  to  touch  a woman,  never 
to  kill  an  animal,  never  to  eat  meat,  eggs  or  milk- 
food;  never  to  eat  anything  but  fish  and  vegetables, 
never  to  do  anything  without  first  saying  the  Lord’s 
Prayer,  never  to  eat,  travel,  or  pass  the  night  without 
a socius . If  I fall  into  the  hands  of  my  enemies  or 
happen  to  be  separated  from  my  socius , I promise  to 
spend  three  days  without  food  or  drink.  I will  never 
take  off  my  clothes  on  retiring,  nor  will  I deny  my 
faith  even  when  threatened  with  death.”  The  cere- 
mony of  the  Par  da  was  then  repeated. 

Then,  according  to  the  ritual,  “ the  Bishop  takes  the 
book  (the  New  Testament),  and  places  it  upon  the 

1 Sacconi,  Summa  de  Catharis , in  Martene  and  Durand, 
Thesaurus  novus  anecdotorum,  vol.  v,  p.  1776. 


THE  INQUISITION 


63 


head  of  the  candidate,”  while  the  other  u good  men  ” 
present  impose  hands  upon  him,  saying:  “ Holy  Father, 
accept  this  servant  of  yours  in  all  righteousness,  and 
send  your  grace  and  your  Spirit  upon  him.”  The  Holy 
Spirit  was  then  supposed  to  descend,  and  the  ceremony 
of  the  consolamentum  was  finished;  “ the  Believer  ” 
had  become  one  of  “ the  Perfected.” 

However,  before  the  assembly  dispersed,  “ the  Per- 
fected ” proceeded  to  carry  out  two  other  ceremonies: 
the  vesting  and  the  kiss  of  peace. 

While  their  worship  was  tolerated,”  writes  an  his- 
torian,1 “ they  gave  their  new  brother  a black  garment; 
but  in  times  of  persecution  they  did  not  wear  it,  for 
fear  of  betraying  themselves  to  the  officials  of  the 
Inquisition.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  in  southern 
France,  they  were  known  by  the  linen  or  flaxen  belt, 
which  the  men  wore  over  their  shirts,  and  the  women 
wore  cordulam  cindam  ad  camera  nudam  subtus  ma- 
millas.  They  resembled  the  cord  or  scapular  that  the 
Catholic  tertiaries  wore  to  represent  the  habit  of  the 
monastic  order  to  which  they  belonged.  They  were 
therefore  called  hceretici  vestiti,  which  became  a com- 
mon term  for  “ the  Perfected.” 

“ The  last  ceremony  was  the  kiss  of  peace,  which  The 
Perfected  1 gave  their  new  brother,  by  kissing  him 
twice  (on  the  mouth),  bis  in  ore  ex  transverso.  He  in 
turn  kissed  the  one  nearest  him,  who  passed  on  the 
pax  to  all  present.  If  the  recipient  was  a woman,  the 
minister  gave  her  the  pax  by  touching  her  shoulder 
with  the  book  of  the  gospels,  and  his  elbow  with  hers. 
She  transmitted  this  symbolic  kiss  in  the  same  manner 

1 Jean  Guiraud,  Le  consolamentum  ou  initiation  cathare}  loc. 
cit p.  134. 


64 


THE  INQUISITION 


to  the  one  next  to  her,  if  he  was  a man.  After  a last 
fraternal  embrace,  they  all  congratulated  the  new 
brother,  and  the  assembly  dispersed.” 

The  promises  made  by  this  new  member  of  “ the 
Perfected  ” were  not  all  equally  hard  to  keep.  As  far 
as  positive  duties  were  concerned,  there  were  but  three: 
the  daily  recitation  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  the  breaking 
of  bread,  and  the  Apparellamentum. 

Only  “ the  Perfected  ” were  allowed  to  recite  the 
Lord’s  Prayer.  The  Cathari  explained  the  esoteric 
character  of  this  prayer  by  that  passage  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse which  speaks  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty- 
four  thousand  elect  who  follow  the  Lamb  whitherso- 
ever He  goeth,  and  who  sing  a hymn  which  only 
virgins  can  sing.1  This  hymn  was  the  Pater  Noster. 
Married  people,  therefore,  and  consequently  “ the 
Believers,”  could  not  repeat  it  without  profanation. 
But  “ the  Perfected  ” were  obliged  to  say  it  every 
day,  especially  before  meals.2 

They  blessed  the  bread  without  making  the  sign  of 
the  cross. 

This  “ breaking  of  bread  ” replaced  the  Eucharist. 
They  thought  in  this  way  to  reproduce  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  while  they  repudiated  all  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Catholic  Mass.  “ The  Believers  ” partook  of  this 
blessed  bread  when  they  sat  at  the  table  with  “ the 
Perfected,”  and  they  were  wont  to  carry  some  of  it 
home  to  eat  from  time  to  time. 

1 Apoc.  xiv.  1-4. 

2 The  Perfected  had  to  live  with  a socius  who  blessed  his  food, 
while  he  in  turn  had  to  bless  the  food  of  his  companion.  If 
he  separated  from  his  socius,  he  had  to  do  without  food  and 
drink  for  three  days.  This  frequently  happened  when  they 
were  arrested  and  cast  into  prison. 


THE  INQUISITION 


65 


Some  attributed  to  it  a wonderful  sanctifying  power, 
and  believed  that  if  at  their  death  none  of  “ the  Per- 
fected ” were  present  to  administer  the  consolamentum , 
this  “ bread  of  the  holy  prayer  ” would  itself  ensure 
their  salvation.  They  were  therefore  very  anxious  to 
keep  some  of  it  on  hand;  and  we  read  of  “ the  Be- 
lievers ” of  Languedoc  having  some  sent  them  from 
Lombardy,  when  they  were  no  longer  able  to  com- 
municate with  their  persecuted  brethren. 

It  was  usually  distributed  to  all  present  during  the 
Apparellamentum.  This  was  the  solemn  monthly  re- 
union of  all  the  Cathari,  “ the  Believers  ” and  “ the 
Perfected.”  All  present  confessed  their  sins,  no  matter 
how  slight,  although  only  a general  confession  was 
required.  . As  a rule  the  Deacon  addressed  the 
assembly,  which  closed  with  the  Parcia  and  the  kiss 
of  peace:  osculantes  sese  invicem  ex  transverso. 

There  was  nothing  very  hard  in  this;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  was  the  consoling  side  of  their  life.  But  their 
rigorous  laws  of  fasting  and  abstinence  constituted  a 
most  severe  form  of  mortification. 

“ The  Perfected  ” kept  three  Lents  a year;  the  first 
from  St.  Brice's  day  (November  13)  till  Christmas; 
the  second  from  Quinquagesima  Sunday  till  Easter; 
the  third  from  Pentecost  to  the  feast  of  Saints  Peter 
and  Paul.  They  called  the  first  and  last  weeks  of 
these  Lents  the  strict  weeks  ( septimana  strida),  because 
during  them  they  fasted  on  bread  and  water  every 
day,  whereas  the  rest  of  the  time  they  fasted  only 
three  days  out  of  the  seven.  Besides  these  special 
penitential  seasons,  they  observed  the  same  rigorous 
fast  three  days  a week  all  during  the  year,  unless  they 
were  sick  or  were  traveling.1 

1 Bernard  Gui,  Practica  inquisitionis , p.  239. 


66 


THE  INQUISITION 


These  heretics  were  known  everywhere  by  their 
fasting  and  abstinence.  “ They  are  good  men,”  it 
was  said,  “ who  live  holy  lives,  fasting  three  days  a 
week,  and  never  eating  meat.”  1 

They  never  ate  meat,  in  fact,  and  this  law  of  absti- 
nence extended,  as  we  have  seen,  to  eggs,  cheese,  and 
everything  which  was  the  result  of  animal  propagation. 
They  were  allowed,  however,  to  eat  cold-blooded 
animals  like  fish,  because  of  the  strange  idea  they  had 
of  their  method  of  propagation. 

One  of  the  results,  or  rather  one  of  the  causes  of 
their  abstinence  from  meat,  was  the  absolute  respect 
they  had  for  animal  life  in  general.  We  have  seen  that 
they  admitted  metempsychosis.  According  to  their 
belief,  the  body  of  an  ox  or  an  ass  might  be  the  dwell- 
ing place  of  a human  soul.  To  kill  these  animals, 
therefore,  was  a crime  equivalent  to  murder.  “ For 
that  reason,”  says  Bernard  Gui,  “ they  never  kill  an 
animal  or  a bird;  for  they  believe  that  in  animals 
and  birds  dwell  the  souls  of  men,  who  died  without 
having  been  received  into  their  sect  by  the  imposition 
of  hands.”  2 This  was  also  one  of  the  signs  by  which 
they  could  be  known  as  heretics.  We  read  of  them 
being  condemned  at  Goslar  and  elsewhere  for  having 
refused  .to  kill  and  eat  a chicken. 

Their  most  extraordinary  mortification  was  the  law 
of  chastity,  as  they  understood  and  practiced  it. 
They  had  a great  horror  of  Christian  marriage,  and 
endeavored  to  defend  their  views  by  the  Scriptures. 
Had  not'  Christ  said:  “ Whosoever  shall  look  on 

1 Douais,  Les  maniLScrits  du  chdteau  de  Merville , in  the  Annoles 
du  Midi,  1890,  p.  185. 

2 Practica  Inquisitionis,  p.  240. 


THE  INQUISITION 


67 


a woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  already  committed 
adultery  with  her  in  his  heart;  ’n  i.  e.,  was  he  not  guilty 
of  a crime?  “ The  children  of  this  world  marry,”  He 
says  again,  “ and  are  given  in  marriage;  but  they 
that  shall  be  accounted  worthy  of  that  world  and  of  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  shall  neither  be  married, 
nor  take  wives.” 1  2 “ It  is  good,”  says  St.  Paul,  “ for 

a man  not  to  touch  a woman.”  3 

The  Cathari  interpreted  these  texts  literally,  and 
when  their  opponents  cited  other  texts  of  Scripture 
which  plainly  taught  the  sacred  character  of  Christian 
marriage,  they  at  once  interpreted  them  in  a spiritual 
or  symbolic  sense.  The  only  legitimate  marriage  in 
their  eyes  was  the  union  of  the  Bishop  with  the  Church, 
or  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the 
ceremony  of  the  consolamentum. 

They  condemned  absolutely  all  marital  relations. 
That  was  the  sin  of  Adam  and  Eve.  Pierre  Garsias 
taught  at  Toulouse  that  the  forbidden  fruit  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden  was  simply  carnal  pleasure. 

One  of  the  purposes  of  marriage  is  the  begetting  of 
children.  But  the  propagation  of  the  human  species 
is  plainly  the  work  of  the  Evil  Spirit.  A woman  with 
child  is  a woman  possessed  of  the  devil.  “ Pray  God,” 
said  one  of  “ the  Perfected  ” to  the  wife  of  a Toulouse 
lumber  merchant,  “ pray  God  that  He  deliver  you  from 
the  devil  within  you.”  The  greatest  evil  that  could 
befall  a woman  was  to  die  enceinte;  for  being  in  the 
state  of  impurity  and  in  the  power  of  Satan,  she  could 
not  be  saved.  We  read  of  the  Cathari  saying  this  to 

1 Matt.  v.  28. 

2 Luke  xx.  34,  35. 

3 1 Corinth,  vii.  1,  7. 


68 


THE  INQUISITION 


Peirona  de  la  Caustra:  quod  si  decederet  prcegnans  non 
posset  salvari . 

Marriage,  because  it  made  such  a condition  pos- 
sible, was  absolutely  condemned.  Bernard  Gui  thus 
resumes  the  teaching  of  the  Cathari  on  this  point: 
“ They  condemn  marriage  absolutely;  they  maintain 
that  it  is  a perpetual  state  of  sin;  they  deny  that  a 
good  God  can  institute  it.  They  declare  the  marital 
relation  as  great  a sin  as  incest  with  one’s  mother, 
daughter,  or  sister.”  And  this  is  by  no  means  a 
calumnious  charge.  The  language  which  Bernard  Gui 
attributes  to  these  heretics  was  used  by  them  on  every 
possible  occasion.  They  were  unable  to  find  words 
strong  enough  to  express  their  contempt  for  marriage. 
“ Marriage,”  they  said,  “ is  nothing  but  licentiousness; 
marriage  is  merely  prostitution.”  In  their  extreme 
hatred,  they  even  went  so  far  as  to  prefer  open  licen- 
tiousness to  it,  saying:  “ Cohabitation  with  one’s  wife 
is  a worse  crime  than  adultery.”  One  might  be  in- 
clined to  think  that  this  was  merely  an  extravagant 
outburst;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  tried  to  defend 
this  view  by  reason.  Licentiousness,  they  argued,  was 
a temporary  thing,  to  which  a man  gave  himself  up 
only  in  secret;  he  might  in  time  become  ashamed  of  it, 
repent  and  renounce  it  entirely.  The  married  state,  on 
the  contrary,  caused  no  shame  whatever;  men  never 
thought  of  renouncing  it,  because  they  did  not  dream 
of  the  wickedness  it  entailed : quia  magis  publice  et  sine 
verecundia  peccatum  fiebat . 

No  one,  therefore,  was  admitted  to  the  consolamen- 
tum  unless  he  had  renounced  all  marital  relations.  In 
this  case,  the  woman  “ gave  her  husband  to  God,  and 
to  the  good  men.”  It  often  happened,  too,  that 


THE  INQUISITION 


69 


women,  moved  by  the  preaching  of  u the  Perfected,” 
condemned  their  unconverted  husbands  to  an  enforced 
celibacy.  This  was  one  of  the  results  of  the  neo-Mani- 
chean  teachings. 

Moreover,  they  carried  their  principles  so  far  as  to 
consider  it  a crime  even  to  touch  a woman. 

They  forbade  a man  to  sit  next  to  a woman  except 
in  case  of  necessity.  “ If  a woman  touches  you,” 
said  Pierre  Autier,  “ you  must  fast  three  days  on  bread 
and  water;  and  if  you  touch  a woman,  you  must  fast 
nine  days  on  the  same  diet.”  At  the  ceremony  of  the 
consolamentum , the  Bishop  who  imposed  hands  on  the 
future  sister  took  great  care  not  to  touch  her,  even 
with  the  end  of  his  finger;  to  avoid  doing  so,  he  always 
covered  the  postulant  with  a veil. 

But  in  times  of  persecution,  this  over-scrupulous 
caution  was  calculated  to  attract  public  attention. 
“ The  Perfected  ” (men  and  women)  lived  together, 
pretending  that  they  were  married,  so  that  they  would 
not  be  known  as  heretics.  It  was  their  constant  care, 
however,  to  avoid  the  slightest  contact.  This  caused 
them  at  times  great  inconvenience.  While  traveling, 
they  shared  the  same  bed,  the  better  to  avoid  sus- 
picion. But  they  slept  with  their  clothes  on,  and  thus 
managed  to  follow  out  the  letter  of  the  law:  tamen 
induti  ita  quod  unus  alium  in  nuda  came  non  tangebat. 

Many  Catholics  were  fully  persuaded  that  this  pre- 
tended love  of  purity  was  merely  a cloak  to  hide  the 
grossest  immorality.  But  while  we  may  admit  that 
many  of  “ the  Perfected  ” did  actually  violate  their 
promise  of  absolute  chastity,  we  must  acknowledge 
that,  as  a general  rule,  they  did  resist  temptation,  and 
preferred  death  to  what  they  considered  impurity. 


70 


THE  INQUISITION 


v 


Many  who  feared  that  they  might  give  way  in  a 
moment  of  weakness  to  the  temptations  of  a corrupt 
nature,  sought  refuge  in  suicide,  which  was  called  the 
endura . There  were  two  forms  for  the  sick  heretic, 

suffocation  and  fasting.  The  candidate  for  death  was 
asked  whether  he  desired  to  be  a martyr  or  a confessor. 
If  he  chose  to  be  a martyr,  they  placed  a handkerchief 
or  a pillow  over  his  mouth,  until  he  died  of  suffocation. 
If  he  preferred  to  be  a confessor,  he  remained  without 
food  or  drink,  until  he  died  of  starvation. 

The  Cathari  believed  that  “ the  Believers,”  who 
asked  for  the  consolamentum  during  sickness,  would  not 
keep  the  laws  of  their  new  faith,  if  they  happened  to 
get  well.  Therefore,  to  safeguard  them  against  apos- 
tasy, they  were  strongly  urged  to  make  their  salvation 
certain  by  the  endura . A manuscript  of  the  Register 
of  the  Inquisition  of  Carcassonne,  for  instance,  tells  us 
of  a Catharan  minister  who  compelled  a sick  woman 
to  undergo  the  endura , after  he  had  conferred  upon 
her  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  forbade  any  one  “ to  give 
her  the  least  nourishment  . . . and  as  a matter  of  fact 
no  food  or  drink  was  given  her  that  night  or  the 
following  day,  lest  perchance  she  might  be  deprived 
of  the  benefit  of  the  consolamentum . 

One  of  “ the  Perfected,”  named  Raymond  Belhot, 
congratulated  a mother  whose  daughter  he  had  just 
“ consoled,”  and  ordered  her  not  to  give  the  sick  girl 
anything  to  eat  or  drink  until  he  returned,  even 
though  she  requested  it.  “If  she  asks  me  for  it,” 
said  the  mother,  “ I will  not  have  the  heart  to  refuse 
her.”  “ You  must  refuse  her,”  said  “ the  good  man,” 

“ or  else  cause  great  injury  to  her  soul.”  From  that 
moment  the  girl  neither  ate  nor  drank;  in  fact  she  did 


THE  INQUISITION 


71 


not  ask  for  any  nourishment.  She  died  the  next 
Saturday. 

About  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  when 
the  Cathari  began  to  give  the  consolamentum  to  infants, 
they  were  often  cruel  enough  to  make  them  undergo 
the  endura.  “ One  would  think/7  says  an  historian 
of  the  time,  “ that  the  world  had  gone  back  to  those 
hateful  days  when  unnatural  mothers  sacrificed  their 
children  to  Moloch.77 

It  sometimes  happened  that  the  parents  of  “ the  con- 
soled 77  withstood  more  or  less  openly  the  cruelty  of 
“ the  Perfected.77 

When  this  happened,  some  of  “ the  Perfected  77  re- 
mained in  the  house  of  the  sick  person,  to  see  that 
their  murderous  prescriptions  were  obeyed  to  the  letter. 
Or  if  this  was  impossible,  they  had  “ the  consoled  77 
taken  to  the  house  of  some  friend,  where  they  could 
readily  carry  out  their  policy  of  starvation. 

But  as  a general  rule  the  “ heretics  77  submitted  to 
the  endura  of  their  own  free  will.  Raymond  Isaure 
tells  us  of  a certain  Guillaume  Sabatier  who  began  the 
endura  in  a retired  villa,  immediately  after  his  initi- 
ation; he  starved  himself  to  death  in  seven  weeks. 
A woman  named  Gentilis  died  of  the  endura  in  six  or 
seven  days.  A woman  of  Coustaussa,  who  had  sepa- 
rated from  her  husband,  went  to  Saverdum  to  receive 
the  consolamentum . She  at  once  began  the  endura  at 
Ax,  and  died  after  an  absolute  fast  of  about  twelve 
weeks.  A certain  woman  named  Montaliva  sub- 
mitted to  the  endura;  during  it  “ she  ate  nothing  what- 
ever, but  drank  some  water;  she  died  in  six  weeks.77  1 
This  case  gives  us  some  idea  of  this  terrible  practice; 

1 Ms.  609,  of  the  library  of  Toulouse,  fol.  28. 


72 


THE  INQUISITION 


we  see  that  they  were  sometimes  allowed  to  drink 
water,  which  explains  the  extraordinary  duration  of 
some  of  these  suicidal  fasts. 

Some  of  the  Cathari  committed  suicide  in  other 
ways.  A woman  of  Toulouse  named  Guillemette  first 
began  to  subject  herself  to  the  endura  by  frequent 
blood  letting;  then  she  tried  to  weaken  herself  more 
by  ^taking  long  baths;  finally  she  drank  poison,  and  as 
death  did  not  come  quickly  enough,  she  swallowed 
pounded  glass  to  perforate  her  intestines.1  Another 
woman  opened  her  veins  in  the  bath.2 

Such  methods  of  suicide  were  exceptional,  although 
the  endura  itself  was  common,  at  least  among  the 
Cathari  of  Languedoc.  “ Every  one,”  says  a trust- 
worthy historian,  “ who  reads  the  acts  of  the  tribunals 
of  the  Inquisition  of  Toulouse  and  Carcassonne  must 
admit  that  the  endura , voluntary  or  forced,  put  to 
death  more  victims  than  the  stake  or  the  Inquisition.” 

Catharism,  therefore,  was  a serious  menace  to  the 
Church,  to  the  State,  and  to  society. 

Without  being  precisely  a Christian  heresy,  its  cus- 
toms, its  hierarchy,  and  above  all  its  rites  of  initiation 
— which  we  have  purposely  explained  in  detail — gave 
it  all  the  appearance  of  one.  It  was  really  an  imitation 
and  a caricature  of  Christianity.  Some  of  its  prac- 
tices were  borrowed  from  the  primitive  Christians,  as 
some  historians  have  proved.3  That  in  itself  would 
justify  the  Church  in  treating  its  followers  as 
heretics. 

1 Ms.  609,  of  Toulouse,  fol.  33. 

2 Ibid .,  fol.  70. 

3 Jean  Guirard,  Le  consolamentum  ou  initiation  cathare , in 
Questions  d'histoire , p.  145  seq. 


THE  INQUISITION 


73 


Besides,  the  Church  merely  acted  in  self-defense. 
The  Cathari  tried  their  best  to  destroy  her  by  attacking 
her  doctrines,  her  hierarchy,  and  her  apostolic  char- 
acter. If  their  false  teachings  had  prevailed,  disturb- 
ing as  they  did  the  minds  of  the  people,  the  Church 
would  have  perished. 

The  princes,  who  did  not  concern  themselves  with 
these  heretics  while  they  merely  denied  the  teachings 
of  the  Church,  at  last  found  themselves  attacked  just 
as  vigorously.  The  Catharan  absolute  rejection  of  the 
oath  of  fealty  was  calculated  to  break  the  bond  that 
united  subjects  to  their  suzerain  lords,  and  at  one 
blow  to  destroy  the  whole  edifice  of  feudalism.  And 
even  granting  that  the  feudal  system  could  cease  to 
exist  without  dragging  down  in  its  fall  all  form  of 
government,  how  could  the  State  provide  for  the  public 
welfare,  if  she  did  not  possess  the  power  to  punish 
criminals,  as  the  Cathari  maintained? 

But  the  great  unpardonable  crime  of  Catharism  was 
its  attempt  to  destroy  the  future  of  humanity  by  its 
endura,  and  its  abolition  of  marriage.  It  taught  that 
the  sooner  life  was  destroyed  the  better.  Suicide, 
instead  of  being  considered  a crime,  was  a means  of 
perfection.  To  beget  children  was  considered  the 
height  of  immorality.  To  become  one  of  “ the  Per- 
fected/’ which  was  the  only  way  of  salvation,  the 
husband  must  leave  his  wife,  and  the  wife  her  husband. 
The  family  must  cease  to  exist,  and  all  men  were 
urged  to  form  a great  religious  community,  vowed  to 
the  most  rigorous  chastity.  If  this  ideal  had  been 
realized,  the  human  race  would  have  disappeared  from 
the  earth  in  a few  years.  Can  any  one  imagine  more 
immoral  and  more  anti-social  teaching? 


74 


THE  INQUISITION 


The  Catholic  Church  has  been  accused  of  setting  up 
a similar  ideal.  This  is  a gross  calumny.  For  while 
Catharism  made  chastity  a sine  qua  non  of  salvation, 
and  denounced  marriage  as  something  infamous  and 
criminal,  the  Church  merely  counsels  virginity  to  an 
61ite  body  of  men  and  women  in  whom  she  recognizes 
the  marks  of  a special  vocation,  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Savior,  “ He  that  can  take,  let  him  take 
it.”  Qui  potest  capere  capiat.1  She  endeavors  at  the 
same  time  to  uphold  the  sacrament  of  marriage,  de- 
claring it  a holy  state,  in  which  the  majority  of  man- 
kind is  to  work  out  its  salvation. 

There  is  consequently  no  parity  whatever  between 
the  two  societies  and  their  teachings.  In  bitterly 
prosecuting  the  Cathari,  the  Church  truly  acted  for 
the  public  good.  The  State  was  bound  to  aid  her  by 
force,  unless  it  wished  to  perish  herself  with  all  the 
social  order.  This  explains  and  to  a certain  degree 
justifies  the  combined  action  of  Church  and  State  in 
suppressing  the  Catharan  heresy. 


1 Matt.  xix.  11,  12. 


CHAPTER  VI 


FIFTH  PERIOD 
Gregory  IX  and  Frederic  II 
The  Establishment  of  the  Monastic  Inquisition 

The  penal  system  codified  by  Innocent  III  was 
rather  liberally  interpreted  in  France  and  Italy.  In 
order  to  make  the  French  law  agree  with  it,  an  oath 
was  added  to  the  coronation  service  from  the  time  of 
Louis  IX,  whereby  the  King  swore  to  exterminate,  i.  e ., 
banish  all  heretics  from  his  kingdom.  We  are  inclined 
to  interpret  in  this  sense  the  laws  of  Louis  VIII  (1226) 
and  Louis  IX  (April,  1228),  for  the  south  of  France. 
The  words  referring  to  the  punishment  of  heretics  are 
a little  vague:  “ Let  them  be  punished,”  says  Louis 
VIII,  “ with  the  punishment  they  deserve.”  “ 4m- 
madversione  debita  puniantur.  The  other  penalties 
specified  are  infamy  and  confiscation;  in  a word,  all 
the  consequences  of  banishment.”  1 2 

Louis  IX  re-enacted  this  law  in  the  following  terms: 
“ We  decree  that  our  barons  and  magistrates  ...  do 
their  duty  in  prosecuting  heretics.”  “ De  ipsis  festi - 
nanter  faciant  quod  debebunt .”  2 These  words  in  them- 

1 Ordonnances  des  roys  de  France , vol.  xii,  pp.  319,  320. 

2 Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  51;  Labbe,  Concilia , vol.  vii,  col.  171. 

75 


76 


THE  INQUISITION 


selves  are  not  very  clear,  and,  if  we  were  to  interpret 
them  by  the  customs  of  a few  years  later,  we  might 
think  that  they  referred  to  the  death  penalty,  even  the 
stake;  but  comparing  them  with  similar  expressions 
used  by  Lucius  III  and  Innocent  III,  we  see  that  they 
imply  merely  the  penalty  of  banishment. 

However,  a canon  of  the  Council  of  Toulouse  in  1229 
seems  to  make  the  meaning  of  these  words  clear,  at 
least  for  the  future.  It  decreed  that  all  heretics  and 
their  abettors  are  to  be  brought  to  the  nobles  and  the 
magistrates  to  receive  due  punishment,  ut  animad - 
versione  debita  puniantur.  But  it  adds  that  “ heretics, 
who,  through  fear  of  death  or  any  other  cause,  except 
their  own  free  will,  return  to  the  faith,  are  to  be 
imprisoned  by  the  bishop  of  the  city  to  do  penance, 
that  they  may  not  corrupt  others;  ” the  bishop  is 
to  provide  for  their  needs  out  of  the  property  con- 
fiscated.1 The  fear  of  death  here  seems  to  imply  that 
the  animadversione  debita  meant  the  death  penalty. 
That  would  prove  the  elasticity  of  the  formula.  At 
first  it  was  a legal  penalty  which  custom  interpreted 
to  mean  banishment  and  confiscation;  later  on  it 
meant  chiefly  the  death  penalty;  and  finally  it  meant 
solely  the  penalty  of  the  stake.  At  any  rate,  this  canon 
of  the  Council  of  Toulouse  must  be  kept  in  mind;  for 
we  will  soon  see  Pope  Gregory  IX  quoting  it. 

In  Italy,  Frederic  II  promulgated  on  November  22, 
1220,  an  imperial  law  which,  in  accordance  with  the 
pontifical  decree  of  March  25,  1199,  and  the  Lateran 
Council  of  1215,  condemned  heretics  to  every  form  of 
banishment,  to  perpetual  infamy,  together  with  the 
confiscation  of  their  property,  and  the  annulment  of 
1 D’Achery,  Spidlegium , in-fol.,  vol.  i,  p.  711. 


THE  INQUISITION 


77 


all  their  civil  acts  and  powers.  It  is  evident  that  the 
emperor  was  influenced  by  Innocent  III,  for,  having 
declared  that  the  children  of  heretics  could  not  inherit 
their  father’s  property,  he  adds  a phrase  borrowed 
from  the  papal  decree  of  1199,  viz.,  “ that  to  offend 
the  divine  majesty  was  a far  greater  crime  than  to 
offend  the  majesty  of  the  emperor.”  1 

This  at  once  put  heresy  on  a par  with  treason,  and 
consequently  called  for  a severer  punishment  than  the 
law  actually  decreed.  We  will  soon  see  others  draw 
the  logical  conclusion  from  the  emperor’s  comparison, 
and  enact  the  death  penalty  for  heresy. 

The  legates  of  Pope  Honorius  were  empowered  to  in- 
troduce the  canonical  and  imperial  legislation  into  the 
statutes  of  the  Italian  cities,  which  hitherto  had  not 
been  at  all  anxious  to  take  any  measures  whatever 
against  heretics.  They  succeeded  in  Bergamo,  Pia- 
cenza, and  Mantua  in  1221;  and  in  Brescia  in  1225. 
In  1226,  the  emperor  himself  ordered  the  podesta  of 
Pavia  to  banish  all  heretics  from  the  city  limits.  About 
the  year  1230,  therefore,  it  was  the  generally  accepted 
law  throughout  all  Italy  (recall  what  we  have  said 
above  about  Faenza,  Florence,  etc.)  to  banish  all  here- 
tics, confiscate  their  property,  and  demolish  their 
houses. 

Two  years  had  hardly  elapsed  when,  through  the 
joint  efforts  of  Frederic  II  and  Gregory  IX,  the  death 
penalty  of  the  stake  was  substituted  for  banishment; 
Guala,  a Dominican,  seems  to  have  been  the  prime 
mover  in  bringing  about  this  change. 

Frederic  II,  influenced  by  the  jurists  who  were  reviv- 
ing the  old  Roman  law,  promulgated  a law  for  Lorn- 
1 Monum.  Germanice , Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  pp.  107-109. 


78 


THE  INQUISITION 


bardy  in  1224,  which  condemned  heretics  to  the  stake, 
or  at  least  to  have  their  tongues  cut  out.1  This 
penalty  of  the  stake  was  common — if  not  legal — in 
Germany.  For  instance,  we  read  of  the  people  of 
Strasburg  burning  about  eighty  heretics  about  the  year 
1212, 2 and  we  could  easily  cite  other  similar  executions.3 
The  emperor,  therefore,  merely  brought  the  use  of  the 
stake  from  Germany  into  Italy.  Indeed  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether  this  law  was  in  operation  before  1230. 

But  in  that  year,  Guala,  the  Dominican,  who  had 
become  Bishop  of  Brescia,  used  his  authority  to  enact 
for  his  episcopal  city  the  most  severe  laws  against 
heresy.  The  podesta  of  the  city  had  to  swear  that  he 
would  prosecute  heretics  as  Manicheans  and  traitors, 
•according  to  both  the  canon  and  the  civil  law,  espe- 
cially in  view  of  Frederic’s  law  of  1224.  Innocent  Ill’s 
comparison  between  heretics  and  traitors,  and  between 
the  Cathari  and  the  Manicheans,  now  bore  fruit. 
Traitors  deserved  the  death  penalty,  while  the  old 
Roman  law  sent  the  Manicheans  to  the  stake;  accord- 
ingly Guala  maintained  that  all  heretics  deserved  the 
stake. 

Pope  Gregory  IX  adopted  this  stern  attitude,  prob- 
ably under  the  influence  of  the  Bishop  of  Brescia, 
with  whom  he  was  in  frequent  correspondence.4  The 
imperial  law  of  1224  was  inscribed  in  1230  or  1231 
upon  the  papal  register,  where  it  figures  as  number  103 

1 A Constitution  sent  to  the  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg,  in  the 
Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  126. 

2 Annates  Marbacenses , ad  ann.  1215,  in  the  Mon.  Germ.  SS., 
vol.  xvii,  p.  174. 

3 Cf.  Julien  Havet,  op.  tit.,  pp.  143,  144. 

4 Gregory  IX  was  four  years  Pope  before  he  enacted  these 
new  laws. 


THE  INQUISITION 


79 


of  the  fourth  year  of  Gregory’s  pontificate.  The  Pope 
then  tried  to  enforce  it,  beginning  with  the  city  of 
Rome.  He  enacted  a law  in  February,  1231,  order- 
ing, as  the  Council  of  Toulouse  had  done  in  1229, 
heretics  condemned  by  the  Church  to  be  handed  over 
to  the  secular  arm,  to  receive  the  punishment  they 
deserved,  animadversio  debita . All  who  abjured  and 
accepted  a fitting  penance  were  to  be  imprisoned  for 
life,  without  prejudice  to  the  other  penalties  for 
heresy,  such  as  confiscation.1 

About  the  same  time,  Annibale,  the  Senator  of 
Rome,  established  the  new  jurisprudence  of  the  Church 
in  the  eternal  city.  Every  year,  on  taking  office,  the 
Senator  was  to  banish  ( diffidare ) all  heretics.  All  who 
refused  to  leave  the  city  were,  eight  days  after  their 
condemnation,  to  receive  the  punishment  they  de- 
served. The  penalty,  animadversio  debita , is  not  speci- 
fied, as  if  every  one  knew  what  was  meant. 

Inasmuch  as  repentant  heretics  were  imprisoned  for 
life,  it  seems  certain  that  the  severer  penalty  reserved 
for  obstinate  heretics  must  have  been  the  death  penalty 
of  the  stake,  for  that  was  the  mode  of  punishment 
decreed  by  the  imperial  law  of  1224,  which  had  just 
been  copied  on  the  registers  of  the  papal  chancery. 
But  we  are  not  left  to  mere  conjecture.  In  February, 
1231,  a number  of  Patarins  were  arrested  in  Rome; 
those  who  refused  to  abjure  were  sent  to  the  stake, 
while  those  who  did  abjure  were  sent  to  Monte  Cassino 
and  Cava  to  do  penance.  This  case  tells  us  instantly 
how  we  are  to  interpret  the  animadversio  debita  of  con- 
temporary documents. 


1Cap.  ii,  Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 


80 


THE  INQUISITION 


Frederic  II  exercised  an  undeniable  influence  over 
Gregory  IX,  and  the  Pope  in  turn  influenced  the 
emperor.  Gregory  wrote  denouncing  the  many  heretics 
who  swarmed  throughout  the  kingdom  of  Sicily  (the 
two  Sicilies),  especially  in  Naples  and  A versa,  urging 
him  to  prosecute  them  with  vigor.  Frederic  obeyed. 
He  was  then  preparing  his  Sicilian  Code,  which  ap- 
peared at  Amalfi  in  August,  1231.  The  first  law, 
Inconsutilem  tunicam , was  against  heretics.  The  em- 
peror did  not  have  to  consult  any  one  about  the 
penalty  to  be  decreed  against  heresy;  he  had  merely 
to  copy  his  own  law,  enacted  in  Lombardy  in  1224. 
This  new  law  declared  heresy  a crime  against  society 
on  a par  with  treason,  and  liable  to  the  same  penalty. 
And  that  the  law  might  not  be  a dead  letter  for  lack 
of  accusers,  the  state  officials  were  commanded  to 
prosecute  it  just  as  they  would  any  other  crime.  This 
was  in  reality  the  beginning  of  the  Inquisition.  All 
suspects  were  to  be  tried  by  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal, 
and  if,  being  declared  guilty,  they  refuse  to  abjure, 
they  were  to  be  burned  in  the  presence  of  the  people.1 

Once  started  on  the  road  to  severity,  Frederic  II 
did  not  stop.  To  aid  Gregory  IX  in  suppressing 
heresy,  he  enacted  at  Ravenna,  in  1237,  an  imperial 
law  condemning  all  heretics  to  death.2 3  The  kind  of 
death  was  not  indicated.  But  every  one  knew  that 
the  common  German  custom  of  burning  heretics  at 
the  stake  had  now  become  the  law.  For  by  three 
previous  laws,  May  14,  1238,  June  26,  1238,  and 
February  22,  1239,  the  emperor  had  declared  that  the 

1 Constitut.  Sicil.,  i,  3,  in  Eymeric,  Directorium  inquisitorum. 

Appendix,  p.  14. 

3 Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 


THE  INQUISITION 


81 


Sicilian  Code  and  the  law  of  Ravenna  were  binding 
upon  all  his  subjects;  the  law  of  June  26,  1238,  merely 
promulgated  these  other  laws  throughout  the  king- 
dom of  Arles  and  Vienne.  Henceforth  all  uncertainty 
was  at  an  end.  The  legal  punishment  for  heretics 
throughout  the  empire  was  death  at  the  stake. 

Gregory  IX  did  not  wait  for  these  laws  to  be  enacted 
to  carry  out  his  intentions. 

As  early  as  1231  he  tried  to  have  the  cities  of  Italy 
and  Germany  adopt  the  civil  and  canonical  laws  in 
vogue  at  Rome  against  heresy,  and  he  was  the  first  to 
inaugurate  that  particular  method  of  prosecution,  the 
permanent  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition. 

We  possess  some  of  the  letters  which  he  wrote  in 
June,  1231,  urging  the  bishops  and  archbishops  to 
further  his  plans.  He  did  not  meet  with  much  success, 
however,  although  the  Dominicans  and  the  Friars 
Minor  did  their  best  to  help  him.  Still  some  cities 
like  Milan,  Verona,  Piacenza  and  Vercelli  adopted  the 
measures  of  persecution  which  he  proposed.  At  Milan, 
Peter  of  Verona,  a Dominican,  on  September  15,  1233, 
had  the  laws  of  the  Pope  and  the  Senator  of  Rome 
inscribed  in  the  city’s  statutes.  The  animadversio 
debita  was  henceforth  interpreted  to  mean  the  penalty 
of  the  stake.  “ In  this  year,”  writes  a chronicler  of 
the  time,  “ the  people  of  Milan  began  to  burn  heretics.” 
In  the  month  of  July,  sixty  heretics  were  sent  to  the 
stake  at  Verona.  The  podest&  of  Piacenza  sent  to  the 
Pope  the  heretics  he  had  arrested.  Vercelli,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Franciscan,  Henry  of  Milan,  incor- 
porated in  1233  into  its  statutes  the  law  of  the  Senator 
of  Rome  and  the  imperial  law  of  1224;  it,  however, 
omitted  in  the  last  named  law  the  clause  which  decreed 


82 


THE  INQUISITION 


the  penalty  of  cutting  out  the  tongue.  In  Germany, 
the  Dominican,  Conrad  of  Marburg,  was  particularly 
active,  in  virtue  of  his  commission  from  Gregory  IX. 
In  accordance  with  the  imperial  law,  we  find  him 
sentencing  to  the  stake  a great  number  of  heretics. 

It  may  be  admitted,  however,  that  in  his  excessive 
zeal  he  even  went  beyond  the  desires  of  the  sovereign 
pontiff.  Gregory  IX  did  not  find  everywhere  so 
marked  an  eagerness  to  carry  out  his  wishes.  A 
number  of  the  cities  of  Italy  for  a long  time  continued 
to  punish  obstinate  heretics  according  to  the  penal 
code  of  Innocent  III,  i.  e .,  by  banishment  and  con- 
fiscation. 

That  the  penalty  of  the  stake  was  used  at  this  time 
in  France  is  proved  by  the  burning  of  one  hundred 
and  eighty-three  Bulgarians  or  Bugres  at  Mont-Wimer 
in  1239,  and  by  two  important  documents,  the  iZta- 
blissements  de  Saint  Louis  and  the  Coutumes  de  Beau - 
vaisis. 

“ As  soon  as  the  ecclesiastical  judge  has  discovered, 
after  due  examination,  that  the  suspect  is  a heretic,  he 
must  hand  him  over  to  the  secular  arm;  and  the 
secular  judge  must  send  him  to  the  stake.”  1 Beau- 
manoir  says  the  same  thing:  “ In  such  a case,  the 
secular  court  must  aid  the  Church;  for  when  the 
Church  condemns  any  one  as  a heretic,  she  is  obliged 
to  hand  him  over  to  the  secular  arm  to  be  sent  to  the 
stake;  for  she  herself  cannot  put  any  one  to  death.”  2 

It  is  a question  whether  this  legislation  is  merely  the 
codification  of  the  custom  introduced  by  popular  up- 

r 

1 Etablissements  de  Saint  Louis , ch.  cxxiii. 

1 Coutumes  de  Beauvaisis , xi,  2;  cf.  xxx,  11,  ed.  Beugnot,  vol. 
i,  pp.  157,  413. 


THE  INQUISITION 


83 


risings  against  heresy  and  by  certain  royal  decrees,  or 
whether  it  owes  its  origin  to  the  law  of  Frederic  II 
which  Gregory  IX  tried  to  enforce  in  France,  as  he 
had  done  in  Germany  and  Italy.  This  second  hy- 
pothesis is  hardly  probable.  The  tribunals  of  the 
Inquisition  did  not  have  to  import  into  France  the 
penalty  of  the  stake;  they  found  it  already  established 
in  both  central  and  northern  France. 

In  fact,  Gregory  IX  urged  everywhere  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  existing  laws  against  heresy,  and  where 
none  existed  he  introduced  a very  severe  system  of 
prosecution.  He  was  the  first,  moreover,  to  establish 
an  extraordinary  and  permanent  tribunal  for  heresy 
trials — an  institution  which  afterwards  became  known 
as  the  monastic  Inquisition. 

The  prosecution  and  the  punishment  of  heretics  in 
every  diocese  was  one  of  the  chief  duties  of  the  bishops, 
the  natural  defenders  of  orthodoxy.  While  heresy 
appeared  at  occasional  intervals,  they  had  little  or  no 
difficulty  in  fulfilling  their  duty.  But  when  the 
Cathari  and  the  Patarins  had  sprung  up  everywhere, 
especially  in  southern  Italy  and  France  and  northern 
Spain,  the  secrecy  of  their  movements  made  the  task 
of  the  bishops  extremely  hard  and  complicated.  Rome 
soon  perceived  that  they  were  not  very  zealous  in 
prosecuting  heresy.  To  put  an  end  to  this  neglect, 
Lucius  III,  jointly  with  the  Emperor  Frederic  Bar- 
barossa  and  the  bishops  of  his  court,  enacted  a decretal 
at  Verona  in  1184,  regulating  the  episcopal  inquisition . 

All  bishops  and  archbishops  were  commanded  to 
visit  personally  once  or  twice  a year,  or  to  empower 
their  archdeacons  or  other  clerics  to  visit,  every  parish 


84 


THE  INQUISITION 


in  which  heresy  was  thought  to  exist.  They  were  to 
compel  two  or  three  trustworthy  men,  or,  if  need  be, 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  to  swear  that  they  would 
denounce  every  suspect  who  attended  secret  assem- 
blies, or  whose  manner  of  living  differed  from  that  of 
the  ordinary  Catholic.  After  the  bishop  had  ques- 
tioned all  who  had  been  brought  before  his  tribunal, 
he  was  empowered  to  punish  them  as  he  deemed  fit, 
unless  the  accused  succeeded  in  establishing  their 
innocence.  All  who  superstitiously  refused  to  take 
the  required  oath  (we  have  seen  how  the  Cathari  con- 
sidered it  criminal  to  take  an  oath)  were  to  be  con- 
demned and  punished  as  heretics,  and  if  they  refused 
to  abjure  they  were  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm.1 
This  was  an  attempt  to  recall  the  bishops  to  a sense 
of  their  duty.  The  Lateran  Council  of  1215  re-enacted 
the  laws  of  Lucius  III;  and  to  ensure  their  enforce- 
ment it  decreed  that  every  bishop  who  neglected  his 
duty  should  be  deposed,  and  another  consecrated  in 
his  place.2  The  Council  of  Narbonne  in  1227  like- 
wise ordered  the  bishops  to  appoint  synodal  witnesses 
(testes  synodales)  in  every  parish  to  prosecute  heretics.3 
But  all  these  decrees,  although  properly  countersigned 
and  placed  in  the  archives,  remained  practically  a dead 
letter.  In  the  first  place  it  was  very  difficult  to  obtain 
the  synodal  witnesses.  And  again,  as  a contemporary 
bishop,  Lucas  de  Tuy,  assures  us,  the  bishops  for  the 
most  part  were  not  at  all  anxious  to  prosecute  heresy. 
When  reproached  for  their  inaction  they  replied:' 

1 Lucius  III,  Ep.  clxxi,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  cci,  col.  1297  and  seq. 

2 The  Bull  Excommunicamus,  Decretals,  cap.  xiii,  in  fine, 
De  hcereticis,  lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 

3 Can.  14,  Labbe,  Concilia,  vol.  xi,  pars  i,  col.  307,  308. 


THE  INQUISITION 


85 


“ How  can  we  condemn  those  who  are  neither  con- 
victed nor  confessed?  ” 1 

The  Popes,  as  the  rulers  of  Christendom,  tried  to 
make  up  for  the  indifference  of  the  bishops  by  sending 
their  legates  to  hunt  for  the  Cathari  in  their  most 
hidden  retreats.  But  they  soon  realized  that  this 
legatine  inquisition  was  ineffective.2 

“ Bishop  and  legate,”  writes  Lea,  “ were  alike  un- 
equal to  the  task  of  discovering  those  who  carefully 
shrouded  themselves  under  the  cloak  of  the  most 
orthodox  observance;  and  when  by  chance  a nest  of 
heretics  was  brought  to  light,  the  learning  and  skill  of 
the  average  Ordinary  failed  to  elicit  a confession  from 
those  who  professed  the  most  entire  accord  with  the 
teachings  of  Rome.  In  the  absence  of  overt  acts,  it  was 
difficult  to  reach  the  secret  thoughts  of  the  sectary. 
Trained  experts  were  needed  whose  sole  business  it 
should  be  to  unearth  the  offenders,  and  extort  a con- 
fession of  their  guilt.” 

At  an  opportune  moment,  therefore,  two  mendicant 
orders,  the  Dominicans  and  the  Franciscans,  were 
instituted  to  meet  the  new  needs  of  the  Church.  Both 
orders  devoted  themselves  to  preaching;  the  Domini- 
cans were  especially  learned  in  the  ecclesiastical 
sciences,  i.  e .,  canon  law  and  theology. 

“ The  establishment  of  these  orders,”  continues  Lea, 
“ seemed  a providential  interposition  to  supply  the 
Church  of  Christ  with  what  it  most  sorely  needed. 

1 Lucas  Tudensis,  De  altera  vita  fideique  controversiis  adversus 
Albigensium  errores , cap.  xix,  in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  4 ed. 
vol.  iv,  col.  575-714.  Lucas  was  Bishop  of  Tuy  in  Galicia, 
from  1239  to  1249. 

2 Cf.  Lea,  op.  cit vol.  i,  p.  315  and  seq. 


86 


THE  INQUISITION 


As  the  necessity  grew  apparent  of  special  and  per- 
manent tribunals,  devoted  exclusively  to  the  wide- 
spread sin  of  heresy,  there  was  every  reason  why  they 
should  be  wholly  free  from  the  local  jealousies  and 
enmities  which  might  tend  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
innocent,  or  the  local  favoritism  which  might  connive 
at  the  escape  of  the  guilty.  If,  in  addition  to  this 
freedom  from  local  partialities,  the  examiners  and 
judges  were  men  specially  trained  to  the  detection  and 
conversion  of  the  heretics;  if  also,  they  had  by  irrev- 
ocable vows  renounced  the  world;  if  they  could 
acquire  no  wealth,  and  were  dead  to  the  enticement 
of  pleasure,  every  guarantee  seemed  to  be  afforded 
that  their  momentous  duties  would  be  fulfilled  with 
the  strictest  justice — that  while  the  purity  of  the  faith 
would  be  protected,  there  would  be  no  unnecessary 
oppression  or  cruelty  or  persecution  dictated  by  private 
interests  and  personal  revenge.  Their  unlimited  pop- 
ularity was  also  a warrant  that  they  would  receive  far 
more  efficient  assistance  in  their  arduous  labors  than 
could  be  expected  by  the  bishops,  whose  position  was 
generally  that  of  antagonism  to  their  flocks,  and  to 
the  petty  seigneurs  and  powerful  barons  whose  aid 
was  indispensable.1 

Gregory  IX  fully  understood  the  help  that  the 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans  could  render  him  as 
agents  of  the  Inquisition  throughout  Christendom. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Senator  of  Rome  refers  to 
them  in  his  oath  in  1231,  when  he  speaks  of  the  In- 
quisitores  datos  ab  Ecclesia ? Frederic  II,  in  his  law 
of  1232,  also  mentions  the  Inquisitores  ab  apostolica 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  pp.  318,  319. 

1 Raynaldi,  Annates , ad  ann.  1231,  sect.  16,  17. 


THE  INQUISITION 


87 


sede  datos.1  The  Dominican  Alb^ric  traveled  through 
Lombardy  in  November,  1232,  with  the  title  of  In- 
quisitor hcereticce  pravitatis2  In  1231  a similar  com- 
mission was  entrusted  to  the  Dominicans  of  Freisach 
and  to  the  famous  Conrad  of  Marburg.  Finally,  to 
quote  but  one  more  instance,  Gregory  IX,  in  1233, 
wrote  an  eloquent  letter  to  the  bishops  of  southern 
France  in  which  he  said:  “ We,  seeing  you  engrossed 
in  the  whirlwind  of  cares,  and  scarce  able  to  breathe 
in  the  pressure  of  overwhelming  anxieties,  think  it 
well  to  divide  your  burdens,  that  they  may  be  more 
easily  borne.  We  have  therefore  determined  to  send 
preaching  friars  against  the  heretics  of  France  and 
the  adjoining  provinces,  and  we  beg,  warn,  and  exhort 
you,  ordering  you,  as  you  reverence  the  Holy  See,  to 
receive  them  kindly,  and  to  treat  them  well,  giving 
them  in  this  as  in  all  else,  favor,  counsel,  and  aid,  that 
they  may  fulfill  their  office.” 

Their  duties  are  outlined  in  a letter  of  Gregory  IX 
to  Conrad  of  Marburg,  October  11,  1231:  “ When 
you  arrive  in  a city,  summon  the  bishops,  clergy  and 
people,  and  preach  a solemn  sermon  on  faith;  then 
select  certain  men  of  good  repute  to  help  you  in  trying 
the  heretics  and  suspects  denounced  before  your  tri- 
bunal. All  who  on  examination  are  found  guilty  or 
suspected  of  heresy  must  promise  to  absolutely  obey 
the  commands  of  the  Church;  if  they  refuse,  you 
must  prosecute  them,  according  to  the  statutes  which 
we  have  recently  promulgated.”  We  have  in  these 
instructions  all  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition:  the 
time  of  grace;  the  call  for  witnesses  and  their  testi- 

1 Cap.  iii,  in  the  Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

2 Potthast,  Regesta  Roman.  Pontif .,  no.  904,  1. 


88 


THE  INQUISITION 


mony;  the  interrogation  of  the  accused;  the  recon- 
ciliation of  repentant  heretics;  the  condemnation  of 
obdurate  heretics. 

Each  detail  of  this  procedure  calls  for  a few  words 
of  explanation. 

The  Inquisitor  first  summoned  every  heretic  of  the 
city  to  appear  before  him  within  a certain  fixed  time, 
which  as  a rule  did  not  exceed  thirty  days.  This 
period  was  called  “ the  time  of  grace  ” ( tempus  gratice). 
The  heretics  who  abjured  during  this  period  were 
treated  with  leniency.  If  secret  heretics,  they  were 
dismissed  with  only  a slight  secret  penance;  if  public 
heretics,  they  were  exempted  from  the  penalties  of 
death  and  life  imprisonment,  and  sentenced  either  to 
make  a short  pilgrimage,  or  to  undergo  one  of  the 
ordinary  canonical  penances. 

If  the  heretics  failed  to  come  forward  of  their  own 
accord,  they  were  to  be  denounced  by  the  Catholic 
people.  At  first  the  number  of  witnesses  required  to 
make  an  accusation  valid  was  not  determined;  later 
on  two  were  declared  necessary.  In  the  beginning, 
the  Inquisition  could  only  accept  the  testimony  of  men 
and  women  of  good  repute;  and  the  Church  for  a 
long  time  maintained  that  no  one  should  be  admitted 
as  an  accuser  who  was  a heretic,  was  excommunicated, 
a homicide,  a thief,  a sorcerer,  a diviner,  or  the  bearer 
of  false  witness.  But  her  hatred  of  heresy  led  her 
later  on  to  set  aside  this  law,  when  the  faith  was  in 
question.  As  early  as  the  twelfth  century,  Gratian 
had  declared  that  the  testimony  of  infamous  and  heret- 
ical witnesses  might  be  accepted  in  trials  for  heresy.1 

^ars  ii,  Causa  ii,  quaest.  vii,  cap.  xxii;  Causa  vi,  quaest. 
i,  cap.  xix. 


THE  INQUISITION 


89 


The  edicts  of  Frederic  II  declared  that  heretics  could 
not  testify  in  the  courts,  but  this  disability  was  re- 
moved when  they  were  called  upon  to  testify  against 
other  suspects.1  In  the  beginning,  the  Inquisitors 
were  loath  to  accept  such  testimony.  But  in  1261 
Alexander  IV  assured  them  that  it  was  lawful  to  do 
so.2  Henceforth  the  testimony  of  a heretic  was  con- 
sidered valid,  although  it  was  always  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Inquisition  to  reject  it  at  will.  This 
principle  was  finally  incorporated  into  the  canon  law, 
and  was  enforced  by  constant  practice.  All  legal 
exceptions  were  henceforth  declared  inoperative  except 
that  of  moral  enmity.3 

Witnesses  for  the  defence  rarely  presented  them- 
selves. Very  seldom  do  we  come  across  any  mention 
of  them.  This  is  readily  understood,  for  they  would 
almost  inevitably  have  been  suspected  as  accomplices 
and  abettors  of  heresy.  For  the  same  reason,  the 
accused  were  practically  denied  the  help  of  counsel. 
Innocent  III  had  forbidden  advocates  and  scriveners 
to  lend  aid  or  counsel  to  heretics  and  their  abettors.4 
This  prohibition,  which  in  the  mind  of  the  Pope  was 
intended  only  for  defiant  and  acknowledged  heretics, 
was  gradually  extended  to  every  suspect  who  was 
striving  to  prove  his  innocence.5 

1 Historia  diplomatica  Frederici  II,  vol.  iv,  pp.  299,  300. 

2 Bull  Consuluit,  of  January  23,  1261,  in  Eymeric,  Directorium 
inquisitorum , Appendix,  p.  40. 

3 Eymeric,  ibid.,  3a  pars,  quaest.  lxvii,  pp.  606,  607.  Pegna, 
ibid.,  pp.  607,  609,  declares  that  great  cruelty  or  even  insulting 
words — v.  g.,  to  call  a man  cornutus  or  a woman  meretrix — might 
come  under  the  head  of  enmity,  and  invalidate  a man’s  testimony. 

4 Decretals,  cap.  xi,  De  hcereticis , lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 

6 Eymeric,  Directorium  inquisitorum , 3a  pars,  quaest.  xxxix, 
p.  565;  cf.  446.  Sometimes,  however,  the  accused  was  granted 


90 


THE  INQUISITION 


Heretics  or  suspects,  therefore,  denounced  to  the  In- 
quisition generally  found  themselves  without  counsel 
before  their  judges. 

They  personally  had  to  answer  the  various  charges 
of  the  indictment  ( capitula ) made  against  them.  It 
certainly  would  have  been  a great  help  to  them,  to 
have  known  the  names  of  their  accusers.  But  the 
fear — well-founded  it  was  true1— that  the  accused  or 
their  friends  wTould  revenge  themselves  on  their 
accusers,  induced  the  Inquisitors  to  withhold  the 
names  of  the  witnesses.2  The  only  way  in  which  the 
prisoner  could  invalidate  the  testimony  against  him 
was  to  name  all  his  mortal  enemies.  If  his  accusers 
happened  to  be  among  them,  their  testimony  was 
thrown  out  of  court.3  But  otherwise,  he  was  obliged 
to  prove  the  falsity  of  the  accusation  against  him — 

counsel,  but  juxta  juris  formam  ac  stylum  et  usum  officii  Inquisi- 
tionis;  cf.  Vidal,  Le  tribunal  d Inquisition,  in  the  Annales  de 
Saint  Louis  des  Frangais , vol.  ix  (1905),  p.  299,  note.  Eymeric 
himself  grants  one  ( Directorium , pp.  451-453).  But  this  lawyer 
was  merely  to  persuade  his  client  to  confess  his  heresy;  he  was 
rather  the  lawyer  of  the  court  than  of  the  accused.  Vidal, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  302,  303.  Pegna,  however,  says  (in  Eymeric 
Directorium , 2a  pars,  ch.  xi,  Comm.  10)  that  in  his  time  the 
accused  was  allowed  counsel,  if  he  were  only  suspected  of  heres}^. 
Cf.  Tanon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  400,  401. 

1 Guillem  Pelhisse  tells  us  that  the  Cathari  sometimes  killed 
those  who  had  denounced  their  brethren.  Chronique,  ed.  Douai, 
p.  90.  A certain  Arnold  Dominici,  who  had  denounced  seven 
heretics,  was  killed  at  night  in  his  bed  by  “ the  Believers.”  Ibid., 
pp.  98,  99. 

2 Eymeric,  Directorium,  3a  pars,  q.  72.  The  law  on  this  point 
varied  from  time  to  time.  When  Boniface  VIII  incorporated 
into  the  canon  law  the  rule  of  withholding  the  names  of  wit- 
nesses, he  expressly  said  that  they  might  be  produced,  if  there 
was  no  danger  in  doing  so.  Cap.  20,  Sexto  v,  2. 

3 Eymeric,  Directorium,  3a  pars,  De  defensionibus  reorum, 
p.  446  and  seq. 


THE  INQUISITION 


91 


a practically  impossible  undertaking.  For  if  two  wit- 
nesses, considered  of  good  repute  by  the  Inquisitor, 
agreed  in  accusing  the  prisoner,  his  fate  was  at  once 
settled;  whether  he  confessed  or  not,  he  was  declared 
a heretic. 

After  the  prisoner  had  been  found  guilty,  he  could 
choose  one  of  two  things;  he  could  abjure  his  heresy 
and  manifest  his  repentance  by  accepting  the  penance 
imposed  by  his  judge,  or  he  could  obstinately  persist 
either  in  his  denial  or  profession  of  heresy,  accepting 
resolutely  all  the  consequences  of  such  an  attitude. 

If  the  heretic  abjured  he  knelt  before  the  Inquisitor 
as  a penitent  before  his  confessor.  He  had  no  reason 
to  fear  his  judge.  For,  properly  speaking,  he  did  not 
inflict  punishment. 

“ The  mission  of  the  Inquisition,”  writes  Lea,  “ was 
to  save  men’s  souls;  to  recall  them  to  the  way  of 
salvation,  and  to  assign  salutary  penance  to  those  who 
sought  it,  like  a father-confessor  with  his  penitent. 
Its  sentences,  therefore,  were  not  like  those  of  an 
earthly  judge,  the  retaliation  of  society  on  the  wrong- 
doer, or  deterrent  examples  to  prevent  the  spread  of 
crime;  they  were  simply  imposed  for  the  benefit  of 
the  erring  soul,  to  wash  away  its  sin.  The  Inquisitors 
themselves  habitually  speak  of  their  ministrations  in 
this  sense.”  1 

But  “ the  sin  of  heresy  was  too  grave  to  be  expiated 
simply  by  contrition  and  amendment.” 2 The  In- 
quisitor, therefore,  pointed  out  other  means  of  expi- 
ation: “The  penances  customarily  imposed  by  the 
Inquisition  were  comparatively  few  in  number.  They 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  p.  459. 

2 Lea,  ibid.,  p.  463. 


92 


THE  INQUISITION 


consisted,  firstly,  of  pious  observances — recitation  of 
prayers,  frequenting  of  churches,  the  discipline,  fast- 
ing, pilgrimages,  and  fines  nominally  for  pious  uses, — 
such  as  a confessor  might  impose  on  his  ordinary 
penitents.”  These  were  for  offences  of  trifling  import. 
“ Next  in  grade  are  the  poence  confusibiles , — the  humili- 
ating and  degrading  penances,  of  which  the  most  im- 
portant was  the  wearing  of  yellow  crosses  sewed  upon 
the  garments;  and,  finally,  the  severest  punishment 
among  those  strictly  within  the  competence  of  the 
Holy  Office,  the  murus  or  prison.”  1 

If  the  heretic  refused  to  abjure,  his  obduracy  put 
an  end  to  the  judge’s  leniency,  and  withdrew  him  at 
once  from  his  jurisdiction. 

“ The  Inquisitor  never  condemned  to  death,  but 
merely  withdrew  the  protection  of  the  Church  from 
the  hardened  and  impenitent  sinner  who  afforded  no 
hope  of  conversion,  or  from  him  who  showed  by 
relapse  that  there  was  no  trust  to  be  placed  in  his 
pretended  repentance.”  2 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  the  State  intervened. 
The  ecclesiastical  judge  handed  over  the  heretic  to  the 
secular  arm,  which  simply  enforced  the  legal  penalty 
of  the  stake.  However,  the  law  allowed  the  heretic  to 
abjure  even  at  the  foot  of  the  stake;  in  that  case  his 
sentence  was  commuted  to  life  imprisonment. 

It  is  hard  to  conceive  of  a greater  responsibility  than 
that  of  a mediaeval  Inquisitor.  The  life  or  death  of 
the  heretic  was  practically  at  his  disposal.  The 
Church,  therefore,  required  him  to  possess  in  a pre- 
eminent degree  the  qualities  of  an  impartial  judge. 

1 Lea,  ibid.,  p.  462. 

2 Lea,  ibid.,  p.  460. 


THE  INQUISITION 


93 


Bernard  Gui,  the  most  experienced  Inquisitor  of  his 
time  (1308-1323),  thus  paints  for  us  the  portrait  of 
the  ideal  Inquisitor:  “ He  should  be  diligent  and  fer- 
vent in  his  zeal  for  religious  truth,  for  the  salvation 
of  souls,  and  for  the  destruction  of  heresy.  He  should 
always  be  calm  in  times  of  trial  and  difficulty,  and 
never  give  way  to  outbursts  of  anger  or  temper.  He 
should  be  a brave  man,  ready  to  face  death  if  neces- 
sary, but  while  never  cowardly  running  from  danger, 
he  should  never  be  foolhardy  rushing  into  it.  He 
should  be  unmoved  by  the  entreaties  or  the  bribes  of 
those  who  appear  before  his  tribunal;  still  he  must 
not  harden  his  heart  to  the  point  of  refusing  to  delay 
or  mitigate  punishment,  as  circumstances  may  require 
from  time  to  time. 

“ In  doubtful  cases,  he  should  be  very  careful  not  to 
believe  too  easily  what  may  appear  probable,  and  yet 
in  reality  is  false;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  should  he 
stubbornly  refuse  to  believe  what  may  appear  im- 
probable, and  yet  is  frequently  true.  He  should 
zealously  discuss  and  examine  every  case,  so  as  to  be 
sure  to  make  a just  decision.  . . . Let  the  love  of 
truth  and  mercy,  the  special  qualities  of  every  good 
judge,  shine  in  his  countenance,  and  let  his  sentences 
never  be  prompted  by  avarice  or  cruelty.”  1 
. This  portrait  corresponds  to  the  idea  that  Gregory 
IX  had  of  the  true  Inquisitor.  In  the  instructions 
which  he  gave  to  the  terrible  Conrad  of  Marburg, 
October  21,  1223,  he  took  good  care  to  warn  him  to  be 
prudent  as  well  as  zealous:  “ Punish  if  you  will,”  he 
said,  “ the  wicked  and  perverse,  but  see  that  no  inno- 
cent person  suffers  at  your  hands:  ” ut  puniatur  sic 

1 Practica  Inquisitionis,  pars  6a,  ed.  Douais,  1886,  pp.  231-233. 


94 


THE  INQUISITION 


temeritas  perversorum , quod  innocentice  puritas  non 
Icedatur.  Gregory  IX  cannot  be  accused  of  injustice, 
but  he  will  ever  be  remembered  as  the  Pope  who  estab- 
lished the  Inquisition  as  a permanent  tribunal,  and 
did  his  utmost  to  enforce  everywhere  the  death  penalty 
for  heresy. 

This  Pope  was,  in  certain  respects,  a very  slave  to 
the  letter  of  the  law.  The  protests  of  St.  Augustine 
and  many  other  early  Fathers  did  not  affect  him  in 
the  least.  In  the  beginning,  while  he  was  legate,  he 
merely  insisted  upon  the  enforcement  of  the  penal 
code  of  Innocent  III,  wThich  did  not  decree  any  punish- 
ment severer  than  banishment,  but  he  soon  began  to 
regard  heresy  as  a crime  similar  to  treason,  and  there- 
fore subject  to  the  same  penalty,  death.  Certain 
ecclesiastics  of  his  court  with  extremely  logical  minds, 
and  rulers  like  Pedro  II  of  Aragon  and  Frederic  II, 
had  reached  the  same  conclusion,  even  before  he  did. 
Finally,  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  pontificate,  and  un- 
doubtedly after  mature  deliberation,  he  decided  to 
compel  the  princes  and  the  podesta  to  enforce  the  law 
condemning  heretics  to  the  stake. 

He  did  his  utmost  to  bring  this  about.  He  did  not 
forget,  however,  that  the  Church  could  not  concern 
herself  in  sentences  of  death.  In  fact,  his  law  of  1231 
decrees  that:  “ Heretics  condemned  by  the  Church  are 
to  be  handed  over  to  the  secular  courts  to  receive  due 
punishment  ( animadversio  debita).” 1 The  emperor 
Frederic  II  had  the  same  notion  of  the  distinction 
between  the  two  powers.  His  law  of  1224  points  out 
carefully  that  heretics  convicted  by  an  ecclesiastical 
trial  are  to  be  burned  in  the  name  of  the  civil  authority: 
1 Decretales , cap.  xv,  De  Hcereticis , lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 


THE  INQUISITION 


95 


audoritate  nostra  ignis  judicio  concremandus } The 
imperial  law  of  1232  likewise  declares  that  heretics  con- 
demned by  the  Church  are  to  be  brought  before  a 
secular  tribunal  to  receive  the  punishment  they  de- 
serve.1 2 This  explains  why  Gregory  IX  did  not  believe 
that  in  handing  over  heretics  to  the  secular  arm  he 
participated  directly  or  indirectly  in  a death  sentence.3 
The  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition  which  he  established 
in  no  way  modified  this  concept  of  ecclesiastical  justice. 
The  Papacy,  the  guardian  of  orthodoxy  for  the  univer- 
sal Church,  simply  found  that  the  Dominicans  and  the 
Franciscans  were  more  docile  instruments  than  the 
episcopate  for  the  suppression  of  heresy.  But  whether 
the  Inquisition  was  under  the  direction  of  the  bishops 
or  the  monks,  it  could  have  been  conducted  on  the 
same  lines. 

But,  as  a matter  of  fact,  it  unfortunately  changed 


1 Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  126. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  196. 

3 Lea  writes  (op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  536,  note):  “ Gregory  IX  had 
no  scruple  in  asserting  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  shed  the  blood 
of  heretics.”  In  a brief  of  1234  to  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  he 
says:  Nec  enim  decuit  Apostolicam  Sedem,  in  ocvlis'  suis  cum 
Madianita  cceunte  Judceo , manum  suam  a sanguine  prohibere,  ne 
si  secus  ageret  non  custodire  populum  Israel  . . . videretur. 
Ripoll,  i,  66.  This  is  certainly  a serious  charge,  but  the  citation 
he  gives  implies  something  altogether  different.  Lea  has  been 
deceived  himself,  and  in  turn  has  misled  his  readers,  by  a com- 
parison which  he  mistook  for  a doctrinal  document.  The  con- 
text, we  think,  clearly  shows  that  the  Pope  was  making  a com- 
parison between  the  Holy  See  and  the  Jewish  leader  Phinees, 
who  had  slain  an  Israelite  and  a harlot  of  Madian,  in  the  very 
act  of  their  crime  (Num.  xxv.  6,  7).  That  does  not  imply  that 
the  Church  uses  the  same  weapons.  Even  if  the  comparison  is 
not  a very  happy  one,  still  we  must  not  exaggerate  its  import. 
The  Pope’s  letter  did  not  even  mention  the  execution  of  heretics. 
Ripoll,  Bullarium  ord.  FF.  Prcedicatorum , vol.  i,  p.  66. 


96 


THE  INQUISITION 


completely  under  the  direction  of  the  monks.  The 
change  effected  by  them  in  the  ecclesiastical  procedure 
resulted  wholly  to  the  detriment  of  the  accused.  The 
safeguards  for  their  defense  were  in  part  done  away 
with.  A pretense  was  made  to  satisfy  the  demands  of 
justice  by  requiring  that  the  Inquisitors  be  prudent 
and  impartial  judges.  But  this  made  everything  de- 
pend upon  individuals,  whereas  the  law  itself  should 
have  been  just  and  impartial.  In  this  respect,  the 
criminal  procedure  of  the  Inquisition  is  markedly 
inferior  to  the  criminal  procedure  of  the  Middle  Ages. 


CHAPTER  VII 


SIXTH  PERIOD 
Development  of  the  Inquisition 
Innocent  IV  and  the  Use  of  Torture 

The  successors  of  Gregory  IX  were  not  long  in  per- 
ceiving certain  defects  in  the  system  of  the  Inquisition. 
They  tried  their  best  to  remedy  them,  although  their 
efforts  were  not  always  directed  with  the  view  of 
mitigating  its  rigor.  We  will  indicate  briefly  their 
various  decrees  pertaining  to  the  tribunals,  the  penal- 
ties and  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition. 

In  appointing  the  Dominicans  and  the  Franciscans 
to  suppress  heresy,  Gregory  IX  did  not  dream  of 
abolishing  the  episcopal  Inquisition.  This  was  still 
occasionally  carried  on  with  its  rival,  whose  procedure 
it  finally  adopted.  Indeed  no  tribunal  of  the  Inquis- 
ition could  operate  in  a diocese  without  the  permission 
of  the  Bishop,  whom  it  was  supposed  to  aid.  But 
it  was  inevitable  that  the  Inquisitors  would  in  time 
encroach  upon  the  episcopal  authority,  and  relying 
upon  their  papal  commission  proceed  to  act  as  inde- 
pendent judges.  This  abuse  frequently  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  Popes,  who,  after  some  hesitation, 
finally  settled  the  law  on  this  point. 

97 


98 


THE  INQUISITION 


“ If  previous  orders  requiring  it  ” (episcopal  concur- 
rence), writes  Lea,  “ had  not  been  treated  with  con- 
tempt, Innocent  IV  would  not  have  been  obliged,  in 
1254,  to  reiterate  the  instructions  that  no  condemna- 
tions to  death  or  life  imprisonment  should  be  uttered 
without  consulting  the  Bishops;  and  in  1255  he  en- 
joined Bishop  and  Inquisitor  to  interpret  in  consulta- 
tion any  obscurities  in  the  laws  against  heresy,  and  to 
administer  the  lighter  penalties  of  deprivation  of  office 
and  preferment.  This  recognition  of  episcopal  juris- 
diction was  annulled  by  Alexander  IV,  who,  after  some 
vacillation,  in  1257  rendered  the  Inquisition  indepen- 
dent by  releasing  it  from  the  necessity  of  consulting 
with  the  Bishops  even  in  cases  of  obstinate  and  con- 
fessed heretics,  and  this  he  repeated  in  1260.  Then 
there  was  a reaction.  In  1262,  Urban  IV,  in  an 
elaborate  code  of  instructions,  formally  revived  the 
consultation  in  all  cases  involving  the  death  penalty 
or  perpetual  imprisonment;  and  this  was  repeated  by 
Clement  IV  in  1265.  Either  these  instructions,  how- 
ever, were  revoked  in  some  subsequent  enactment,  or 
they  soon  fell  into  desuetude,  for  in  1273,  Gregory  X, 
after  alluding  to  the  action  of  Alexander  IV  in  annul- 
ling consultation,  proceeds  to  direct  that  Inquisitors 
in  deciding  upon  sentences  shall  proceed  in  accordance 
with  the  counsel  of  the  Bishops  or  their  delegates,  so 
that  the  episcopal  authority  might  share  in  decisions 
of  such  moment.”  1 

This  decretal  remained  henceforth  the  law.  But  as 
the  Inquisitors  at  times  seemed  to  act  as  if  it  did  not 
exist,  Boniface  VIII  and  Clement  IV  strengthened  it 
by  declaring  null  and  void  all  grave  sentences  in  which 
1 Lea,  ov.  cit .,  p.  335. 


THE  INQUISITION 


99 


the  Bishop  had  not  been  consulted.1  The  consul- 
tation, however,  between  the  Bishop  and  Inquisitor 
could  be  conducted  through  delegates.  In  insisting 
upon  this,  the  Popes  proved  that  they  were  anxious 
to  give  the  sentences  of  the  Inquisition  every  possible 
guarantee  of  perfect  justice. 

Another  way  in  which  the  Popes  labored  to  render 
the  sentences  of  the  Inquisition  just,  was  the  institution 
of  experts.  As  the  questions  which  arose  before  the 
tribunals  in  matters  of  heresy  were  often  very  com- 
plex, “ it  was  soon  found  requisite  to  associate  with 
the  Inquisitors  in  the  rendering  of  sentences  men  versed 
in  the  civil  and  canon  law,  which  had  by  this  time 
become  an  intricate  study,  requiring  the  devotion  of 
a lifetime.  Accordingly  they  were  empowered  to  call 
in  experts  to  deliberate  with  them  over  the  evidence, 
and  advise  with  them  on  the  sentence  to  be  rendered.’  2 

The  official  records  of  the  sentences  of  the  Inquisition 
frequently  mention  the  presence  of  these  experts, 
periti  and  boni  viri.  Their  number,  which  varied 
according  to  circumstances,  was  generally  large.  At 
a consultation  called  by  the  Inquisitors  in  January, 
1329,  at  the  Bishop’s  palace  in  Pamiers,  there  were 
thirty-five  present,  nine  of  whom  were  jurisconsults; 
and  at  another  in  September,  1329,  there  were  fifty- 
one  present,  twenty  of  whom  were  civil  lawyers. 

“ At  a comparatively  early  date,  the  practice  was 
adopted  of  allowing  a number  of  culprits  to  accumu- 
late, whose  fate  was  determined  and  announced  in  a 
solemn  Sermo  or  auto-da-fe.  ...  In  the  final  shape 

1 Sexto,  lib.  v,  tit.  ii,  cap.  17,  Per  hoc ; Clementin*  lib  v.  tit. 
iii,  cap.  i,  Multorum  querela. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  388. 


100 


THE  INQUISITION 


which  the  assembly  of  counsellors  assumed,  we  find  it 
summoned  to  meet  on  Fridays,  the  Sermo  always 
taking  place  on  Sundays.  When  the  number  of  crimi- 
nals was  large,  there  was  not  much  time  for  delibera- 
tion in  special  cases.  The  assessors  were  always  to  be 
jurists  and  Mendicant  Friars,  selected  by  the  Inquisitor 
in  such  numbers  as  he  saw  fit.  They  were  severally 
sworn  on  the  Gospels  to  secrecy,  and  to  give  good  and 
wise  counsel,  each  one  according  to  his  conscience, 
and  to  the  knowledge  vouchsafed  him  by  God.  The 
Inquisitor  then  read  over  his  summary  of  each  case, 
sometimes  withholding  the  name  of  the  accused,  and 
they  voted  the  sentence,  “ Penance  at  the  discretion 
of  the  Inquisitor  ” — “ that  person  is  to  be  imprisoned, 
or  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  ” — while  the  Gospels 
lay  on  the  table  “ so  that  our  judgment  might  come 
from  the  face  of  God,  and  our  eyes  might  see 
justice.”  1 

We  have  here  the  beginnings  of  our  modern  jury. 
As  a rule,  the  Inquisitors  followed  the  advice  of  their 
counsellors,  save  when  they  themselves  favored  a less 
severe  sentence.  The  labor  of  these  experts  was  con- 
siderable, and  often  lasted  several  days.  “ A brief 
summary  of  each  case  was  submitted  to  them.  Ey- 
meric  maintained  that  the  whole  case  ought  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  them;  and  that  was  undoubtedly  the  com- 
mon practice.  But  Pegna,  on  the  other  hand,  thought 
it  was  better  to  withhold  from  the  assessors  the  names 
of  both  the  witnesses  and  the  prisoners.  He  declares 
that  this  was  the  common  practice  of  the  Inquisition, 
at  least  as  far  as  the  names  were  concerned.  This 
was  also  the  practice  of  the  Inquisitors  of  southern 
1 Lea,  op.  cit.}  vol.  i,  p.  389. 


THE  INQUISITION 


101 


France,  as  Bernard  Gui  tells  us.  The  majority  of  the 
counsellors  received  a brief  summary  of  the  case,  the 
names  being  withheld.  Only  a very  few  of  them  were 
deemed  worthy  to  read  the  full  text  of  all  the  in- 
terrogatories.” 1 

We  can  readily  see  how  the  periti  or  boni  viri,  who 
were  called  upon  to  decide  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  accused  from  evidence  considered  in  the  abstract, 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  prisoners’  names  or 
motives,  could  easily  make  mistakes.  In  fact,  they 
did  not  have  data  enough  to  enable  them  to  decide  a 
concrete  case.  For  tribunals  are  to  judge  criminals 
and  not  crimes,  just  as  physicians  treat  sick  people 
and  not  diseases  in  the  abstract.  We  know  that  the 
same  disease  calls  for  a different  treatment  in  different 
individuals;  in  like  manner  a crime  must  be  judged 
with  due  reference  to  the  mentality  of  the  one  who 
has  committed  it.  The  Inquisition  did  not  seem  to 
understand  this.2 

The  assembly  of  experts,  therefore,  instituted  by  the 
Popes  did  not  obtain  the  good  results  that  were  ex- 
pected. But  we  must,  at  least,  in  justice  admit  that 
the  Popes  did  their  utmost  to  protect  the  tribunals  of 
the  Inquisition  from  the  arbitrary  action  of  individual 
judges,  by  requiring  the  Inquisitors  to  consult  both  the 
boni  viri  and  the  Bishops. 

Over  the  various  penalties  of  the  Inquisition,  the 

1 Tanon,  op.  cit p.  421. 

2 Even  in  our  day  the  jury  is  bound  to  decide  on  the  merits 
of  the  case  submitted  to  it,  without  regarding  the  consequences 
of  its  verdict.  The  foreman  reminds  the  jurymen  in  advance 
that  “ they  will  be  false  to  their  oath  if,  in  giving  their  decision, 
they  are  biased  by  the  consideration  of  the  punishment  their 
verdict  will  entail  upon  the  prisoner.” 


102 


THE  INQUISITION 


Popes  likewise  exercised  a supervision  which  was 
always  just  and  at  times  most  kindly. 

The  greatest  penalties  which  the  Inquisition  could 
inflict  were  life  imprisonment,  and  abandonment  of  the 
prisoner  to  the  secular  arm.  It  is  only  with  regard  to 
the  first  of  these  penalties  that  we  see  the  clemency  of 
both  Popes  and  Councils.  Any  one  who  considers  the 
rough  manners  of  this  period,  must  admit  that  the 
Church  did  a great  deal  to  mitigate  the  excessive 
cruelty  of  the  mediaeval  prisons. 

The  Council  of  Toulouse,  in  1229,  decreed  that  re- 
pentant heretics  “ must  be  imprisoned,  in  such  a way 
that  they  could  not  corrupt  others.”  It  also  de- 
clared that  the  Bishop  was  to  provide  for  the  prisoners’ 
needs  out  of  their  confiscated  property.  Such  meas- 
ures betoken  an  earnest  desire  to  safeguard  the  health, 
and  to  a certain  degree  the  liberty  of  the  prisoners. 
In  fact,  the  documents  we  possess  prove  that  the  con- 
demned sometimes  enjoyed  a great  deal  of  freedom, 
and  were  allowed  to  receive  from  their  friends  an 
additional  supply  of  food,  even  when  the  prison  fare 
was  ample. 

But  in  many  places  the  prisoners,  even  before  their 
trial,  were  treated  with  great  cruelty.  “ The  papal 
orders  were  that  they  (the  prisons)  should  be  con- 
structed of  small,  dark  cells  for  solitary  confinement, 
only  taking  care  that  the  enormis  rigor  of  the  incar- 
ceration should  not  extinguish  life.”  1 But  this  last 
provision  was  not  always  carried  out.  Too  often  the 
prisoners  were  confined  in  narrow  cells  full  of  disease, 
and  totally  unfit  for  human  habitation.  The  Popes, 
learning  this  sad  state  of  affairs,  tried  to  remedy  it. 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  p.  491. 


THE  INQUISITION 


103 


Clement  V was  particularly  zealous  in  his  attempts  at 
prison  reform.1  That  he  succeeded  in  bettering,  at 
least  for  a time,  the  lot  of  these  unfortunates,  in  whom 
he  interested  himself,  cannot  be  denied.2 

If  the  reforms  he  decreed  were  not  all  carried  out, 
the  blame  must  be  laid  to  the  door  of  those  appointed 
to  enforce  them.  History  frees  him  from  all  respon- 
sibility. 

The  part  played  by  the  Popes,  the  Councils,  and  the 
Inquisitors  in  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  does 
not  appear  in  so  favorable  a light.  While  not  directly 
participating  in  the  death  sentences,  they  were  still 
very  eager  for  the  execution  of  the  heretics  they 
abandoned  to  the  secular  arm.  This  is  well  attested 
by  both  documents  and  facts. 

Lucius  III,  at  the  Council  of  Verona  in  1184,  ordered 
sovereigns  to  swear,  in  the  presence  of  their  Bishops, 
to  execute  fully  and  conscientiously  the  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  laws  against  heresy.  If  they  refused  or 
neglected  to  do  this,  they  themselves  were  liable  to  ex- 
communication  and  their  rebellious  cities  to  interdict.3 

1 He  ordered  that  the  prisons  be  kept  in  good  condition,  that 
they  be  looked  after  by  both  Bishop  and  Inquisitor,  each  of 
whom  was  to  appoint  a jailer  who  would  keep  the  prison  keys, 
that  all  provisions  sent  to  the  prisoners  should  be  faithfully 
given  them,  etc.  Cf.  Decretal  Multorum  querela  in  Eymeric, 
Directorium , p.  112. 

2 His  legates  Pierre  de  la  Chapelle  and  Beranger  de  Fredol 
visited  in  April,  1306,  the  prisons  of  Carcassonne  and  Albi, 
changed  the  jailers,  removed  the  irons  from  the  prisoners,  and 
made  others  leave  the  subterraneous  cells  in  which  they  had 
been  confined.  Douais,  Documents , vol.  ii,  p.  304  seq.  Cf. 
Compayre,  Etudes  historiques  sur  V Albigeois,  pp.  240-245. 

3 Decretal  Ad  abolendam , in  the  Decretals,  cap,  ix,  de  Hcereticis , 
lib.  v,  tit.  vii.  Cf.  Sexto,  lib.  v,  tit.  ii,  c.  2.  Ut  Officium ; Council 
of  Arles,  1254,  can.  iii;  Council  of  Beziers,  1246,  can.  ix. 


104 


THE  INQUISITION 


Innocent  IV,  in  1252,  enacted  a law  still  more  severe, 
insisting  on  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon 
heretics.  “ When/’  he  says,  “ heretics  condemned  by 
the  Bishop,  his  Vicar,  or  the  Inquisitors,  have  been 
abandoned  to  the  secular  arm,  the  podesta  or  ruler  of 
the  city  must  take  charge  of  them  at  once,  and  within 
five  days  enforce  the  laws  against  them.”  1 

This  law,  or  rather  the  bull  Ad  Extirpanda , which 
contains  it,  was  to  be  inscribed  in  perpetuity  in  all  the 
local  statute  books.  Any  attempt  to  modify  it  was  a 
crime,  which  condemned  the  offender  to  perpetual 
infamy,  and  a fine  enforced  by  the  ban.  Moreover, 
each  podesta,  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  his  term, 
was  required  to  have  this  bull  read  in  all  places  desig- 
nated by  the  Bishop  and  the  Inquisitors,  and  to  erase 
from  the  statute  books  all  laws  to  the  contrary. 

At  the  same  time,  Innocent  IV  issued  instructions  to 
the  Inquisitors  of  upper  Italy,  urging  them  to  have 
this  bull  and  the  edicts  of  Frederic  II  inserted  in  the 
statutes  of  the  various  cities.2  And  to  prevent  mis- 
takes being  made  as  to  which  imperial  edicts  he  wished 
enforced,  he  repeated  these  instructions  in  1254,  and 
inserted  in  one  of  his  bulls  the  cruel  laws  of  Frederic  II, 
viz.,  the  edict  of  Ravenna,  Commissis  nobis , which 
decreed  the  death  of  obdurate  heretics;  and  the 
Sicilian  law,  Inconsutilem  tunicam , which  expressly 
decreed  that  such  heretics  be  sent  to  the  stake. 

These  decrees  remained  the  law  as  long  as  the  In- 
quisition lasted.  The  bull  Ad  Extirpanda  was,  how- 
ever, slightly  modified  from  time  to  time.  “ In  1265, 

1 Ey meric,  Directorium,  Appendix,  p.  8. 

2 Cf.  the  bulls  Cum  adversus , Tunc  potissime , Ex  Commissis 
nobis,  etc.,  in  Eymeric,  ibid.,  pp.  9-12. 


THE  INQUISITION 


105 


Clement  IV  again  went  over  it,  carefully  making  some 
changes,  principally  in  adding  the  word  ‘ Inquisitors  ’ 
in  passages  where  Innocent  had  only  designated  the 
Bishops  and  Friars,  thus  showing  that  the  Inquisition 
had,  during  the  interval,  established  itself  as  the  recog- 
nized instrumentality  in  the  prosecution  of  heresy,  and 
the  next  year  he  repeated  Innocent’s  emphatic  order 
to  the  Inquisitors  to  enforce  the  insertion  of  his  legis- 
lation and  that  of  his  predecessors  upon  the  statute 
books  everywhere,  with  the  free  use  of  excommuni- 
cation and  interdict.”  1 

A little  later,  Nicholas  IV,  who  during  his  short  pon- 
tificate (1288-1292),  greatly  favored  the  Inquisition  in 
its  work,  re-enacted  the  bulls  of  Innocent  IV  and 
Clement  IV,  and  ordered  the  enforcement  of  the  laws 
of  Frederic  II,  lest,  perchance,  they  might  fall  into 
desuetude.2 

It  is  therefore  proved  beyond  question  that  the 
Church,  in  the  person  of  the  Popes,  used  every  means 
at  her  disposal,  especially  excommunication,  to  compel 
the  State  to  enforce  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty 
upon  heretics.  This  excommunication,  moreover,  was 
all  the  more  dreaded,  because,  according  to  the  canons, 
the  one  excommunicated,  unless  absolved  from  the 
censure,  was  regarded  as  a heretic  himself  within  a 
year’s  time,  and  was  liable  therefore  to  the  death 
penalty.3  The  princes  of  the  day,  therefore,  had  no 

1 Lea,  op.  cit .,  vol.  i,  p.  339. 

2 Registers , published  by  Langlois,  no.  4253. 

3 Alexander  IV  decreed  this  penalty  against  the  contumacious. 
Sexto,  De  Hoereticis,  cap.  vii.  Boniface  VIII  extended  it  to  those 
princes  and  magistrates  who  did  not  enforce  the  sentences  of 
the  Inquisition.  Sexto,  De  Hoereticis , cap.  xviii  in  Eymeric, 
2a  pars,  p.  110. 


106 


THE  INQUISITION 


other  way  of  escaping  this  penalty,  except  by  faith- 
fully carrying  out  the  sentence  of  the  Church. 

The  Church  is  also  responsible  for  having  introduced 
torture  into  the  proceedings  of  the  Inquisition.  This 
cruel  practice  was  introduced  by  Innocent  IV  in  1252. 

Torture  had  left  too  terrible  an  impression  upon  the 
minds  of  the  early  Christians  to  permit  of  their  em- 
ploying it  in  their  own  tribunals.  The  barbarians  who 
founded  the  commonwealths  of  Europe,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Visigoths,  knew  nothing  of  this  brutal 
method  of  extorting  confessions.  The  only  thing  of 
the  kind  which  they  allowed  was  flogging,  which, 
according  to  St.  Augustine,  was  rather  akin  to  the 
correction  of  children  by  their  parents.  Gratian,  who 
recommends  it  in  his  Decretum / lays  it  down  as  an 
“ accepted  rule  of  canon  law  that  no  confession  is 
to  be  extorted  by  torture/7  2 Besides,  Nicholas  I, 
in  his  instructions  to  the  Bulgarians,  had  formally 
denounced  the  torturing  of  prisoners.1 2 3  He  advised 
that  the  testimony  of  three  persons  be  required  for  con- 
viction; if  these  could  not  be  obtained,  the  prisoner’s 
oath  upon  the  Gospels  was  to  be  considered  sufficient. 

The  ecclesiastical  tribunals  borrowed  from  Germany 
another  method  of  proving  crime,  viz.,  the  ordeals,  or 
judgments  of  God. 

There  was  the  duel,  the  ordeal  of  the  cross,  the 
ordeal  of  boiling  water,  the  ordeal  of  fire,  and  the 
ordeal  of  cold  water.  They  had  a great  vogue  in 

1 Causa  v,  quaest.  v,  Uli  qui,  cap.  iv. 

2 Causa  xv,  quaest.  vi,  cap.  i. 

3 Responsa  ad  Consulta  Bulgarorum,  cap.  lxxxvi,  Labbe,  Con- 
cilia, vol.  viii,  col.  544. 


THE  INQUISITION 


107 


nearly  all  the  Latin  countries,  especially  in  Germany 
and  France.  But  about  the  twelfth  century  they 
deservedly  fell  into  great  disfavor,  until  at  last  the 
Popes,  particularly  Innocent  III,  Honorius  III,  and 
Gregory  IX,  legislated  them  out  of  existence.1 

At  the  very  moment  the  Popes  were  condemning 
the  ordeals,  the  revival  of  the  Roman  law  throughout 
the  West  was  introducing  the  customs  of  antiquity. 
It  was  then  “ that  jurists  began  to  feel  the  need  of 
torture,  and  accustom  themselves  to  the  idea  of  its 
introduction.  The  earliest  instances  with  which  I have 
met,”  writes  Lea,  “ occur  in  the  Veronese  code  of  1228, 
and  the  Sicilian  constitutions  of  Frederic  II  in  1231, 
and  in  both  of  these  the  references  to  it  show  how 
sparingly  and  hesitatingly  it  was  employed.  Even 
Frederic,  in  his  ruthless  edicts,  from  1220  to  1239, 
makes  no  allusion  to  it,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
Verona  decree  of  Lucius  III,  prescribes  the  recog- 
nized form  of  canonical  purgation  for  the  trial  of  all 
suspected  heretics.”  2 

The  use  of  torture,  as  Tanon  has  pointed  out,  had 
perhaps  never  been  altogether  discontinued.  Some 
ecclesiastical  tribunals,  at  least  in  Paris,  made  use  of  it 
in  extremely  grave  cases,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth 
and  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  centuries.3  But  this 
was  exceptional:  in  Italy,  apparently,  it  had  never 
been  used. 

Gregory  IX  ignored  all  references  to  torture  made 
in  the  Veronese  code,  and  the  constitutions  of  Frederic 

1 Decretals,  lib.^v,  tit.  xxxv,  cap.  i-iii.  Cf.  Vacandard,  UEglise 
et  les  Ordalies  in  Etudes  de  critique  et  d'histoire , 3d  ed.,  Paris,  1906, 
pp.  191-215. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit .,  vol.  i,  p.  421. 

3 Tanon,  op.  cit.7  pp.  362-373. 


108 


THE  INQUISITION 


II.  But  Innocent  IV,  feeling  undoubtedly  that  it 
was  a quick  and  effective  method  for  detecting  crimi- 
nals, authorized  the  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition  to 
employ  it.  In  his  bull  Ad  Extirpanda , he  says:  “ The 
podesta  or  ruler  (of  the  city)  is  hereby  ordered  to  force 
all  captured  heretics  to  confess  and  accuse  their  accom- 
plices by  torture  which  will  not  imperil  life  or  injure 
limb,  just  as  thieves  and  robbers  are  forced  to  accuse 
their  accomplices,  and  to  confess  their  crimes;  for 
these  heretics  are  true  thieves,  murderers  of  souls,  and 
robbers  of  the  sacraments  of  God.”  1 The  Pope  here 
tries  to  defend  the  use  of  torture,  by  classing  heretics 
with  thieves  and  murderers.  A mere  comparison  is 
his  only  argument. 

This  law  of  Innocent  IV  was  renewed  and  confirmed 
November  30,  1259,  by  Alexander  IV,2  and  again  on 
November  3,  1265,  by  Clement  IV.3  The  restriction 
of  Innocent  III  to  use  torture  “ which  should  not 
imperil  life  or  injure  limb  ” ( Cogere  citra  membri  di- 
minutionem  et  mortis  periculum ),  left  a great  deal  to 
the  discretion  of  the  Inquisitors.  Besides  flogging,  the 
other  punishments  inflicted  upon  those  who  refused  to 
confess  the  crime  of  which  they  were  accused  were 
antecedent  imprisonment,  the  rack,  the  strappado , and 
the  burning  coals. 

When  after  the  first  interrogatory  the  prisoner 
denied  what  the  Inquisitors  believed  to  be  very 
probable  or  certain,  he  was  thrown  into  prison.  The 
durus  career  et  arcta  vita  was  deemed  an  excellent 
method  of  extorting  confessions. 

1 Bull  Ad  Extirpanda , in  Ey meric,  Directorium,  Appendix,  p.  8. 

2 Potthast,  Regesta , no.  17714. 

3 Ibid.,  no.  19433. 


THE  INQUISITION 


109 


“ It  was  pointed  out,”  says  Lea,  u that  judicious 
restriction  of  diet  not  only  reduced  the  body,  but 
weakened  the  will,  and  rendered  the  prisoner  less  able 
to  resist  alternate  threats  of  death  and  promises  of 
mercy.  Starvation,  in  fact,  was  reckoned  one  of  the 
regular  and  most  efficient  methods  to  subdue  unwilling 
witnesses  and  defendants.” 1 This  was  the  usual 
method  employed  in  Languedoc.  “It  is  the  only 
method,”  writes  Mgr.  Douais,2  “ to  extort  confessions 
mentioned  either  in  the  records  of  the  notary  of  the 
Inquisition  of  Carcassonne3  or  in  the  sentences  of 
Bernard  Gui.  It  was  also  the  practice  of  the  Inquisi- 
tors across  the  Rhine.” 

Still  the  use  of  torture,  especially  of  the  rack  and 
the  strappado , was  not  unknown  in  southern  Europe, 
even  before  the  promulgation  of  Innocent’s  bull  Ad 
Extirpanda. 

The  rack  was  a triangular  frame,  on  which  the 
prisoner  was  stretched  and  bound,  so  that  he  could 
not  move.  Cords  were  attached  to  his  arms  and  legs, 
and  then  connected  with  a windlass,  which,  when 
turned,  dislocated  the  joints  of  the  wrists  and  ankles. 

The  strappado  or  vertical  rack  was  no  less  painful. 
The  prisoner  with  his  hands  tied  behind  his  back  was 
raised  by  a rope  attached  to  a pulley  and  windlass  to 
the  top  of  a gallows,  or  to  the  ceiling  of  the  torture 
chamber;  he  was  then  let  fall  with  a jerk  to  within  a 
few  inches  of  the  ground.  This  was  repeated  several 
times.  The  cruel  torturers  sometimes  tied  weights  to 
the  victim’s  feet  to  increase  the  shock  of  the  fall. 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  p.  421. 

2 Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  p.  ccxl. 

* Douais,  Documents , vol.  ii,  p.  115  and  seq. '] 


110 


THE  INQUISITION 


The  punishment  of  burning,  “ although  a very  dan- 
gerous punishment/’  as  an  Inquisitor  informs  us,  was 
occasionally  used.  We  read  of  an  official  of  Poitiers, 
who,  following  a Toulousain  custom,  tortured  a sor- 
ceress by  placing  her  feet  on  burning  coals  ( juxta 
carbones  accensos ).  This  punishment  is  described  by 
Marsollier  in  his  Histoire  de  V Inquisition.  First  a good 
fire  was  started;  then  the  victim  was  stretched  out 
on  the  ground,  his  feet  manacled,  and  turned  toward 
the  flame.  Grease,  fat,  or  some  other  combustible 
substance  was  rubbed  upon  them,  so  that  they  were 
horribly  burned.  From  time  to  time  a screen  was 
placed  between  the  victim’s  feet  and  the  brazier,  that 
the  Inquisitor  might  have  an  opportunity  to  resume 
his  interrogatory. 

Such  methods  of  torturing  the  accused  were  so  de- 
testable, that  in  the  beginning  the  torturer  was  always 
a civil  official,  as  we  read  in  the  bull  of  Innocent  IV. 
The  canons  of  the  Church,  moreover,  prohibited  all 
ecclesiastics  from  taking  part  in  these  tortures,  so  that 
the  Inquisitor  who,  for  whatever  reason,  accompanied 
the  victim  into  the  torture  chamber,  was  thereby 
rendered  irregular,  and  could  not  exercise  his  office 
again,  until  he  had  obtained  the  necessary  dispen- 
sation. The  tribunals  complained  of  this  cumbrous 
mode  of  administration,  and  declared  that  it  hindered 
them  from  properly  interrogating  the  accused.  Every 
effort  was  made  to  have  the  prohibition  against  clerics 
being  present  in  the  torture  chamber  removed.  Their 
object  was  at  last  obtained  indirectly.  On  April  27, 
1260,  Alexander  IV  authorized  the  Inquisitors  and 
their  associates  to  mutually  grant  all  the  needed 
dispensations  for  irregularities  that  might  be  in- 


THE  INQUISITION 


111 


curred.1  This  permission  was  granted  a second  time 
by  Urban  IV,  August  4,  1262  ;2  it  was  practically  an 
authorization  to  assist  at  the  interrogatories  at  which 
torture  was  employed.  From  this  time  the  Inquis- 
itors did  not  scruple  to  appear  in  person  in  the  torture 
chamber.  The  manuals  of  the  Inquisition  record  this 
practice  and  approve  it.3 

Torture  was  not  to  be  employed  until  the  judge  had 
been  convinced  that  gentle  means  were  of  no  avail.4 
Even  in  the  torture  chamber,  while  the  prisoner  was 
being  stripped  of  his  garments  and  was  being  bound, 
the  Inquisitor  kept  urging  him  to  confess  his 
guilt.  On  his  refusal,  the  vexatio  began  with  slight 
tortures.  If  these  proved  ineffectual,  others  were 
applied  with  gradually  increased  severity;  at  the  very 
beginning,  the  victim  was  shown  all  the  various  instru- 
ments of  torture,  in  order  that  the  mere  sight  of  them 
might  terrify  him  into  yielding.5 

The  Inquisitors  realized  so  well  that  such,  forced 
confessions  were  valueless,  that  they  required  the 
prisoner  to  confirm  them  after  he  had  left  the  torture 
chamber.  The  torture  was  not  to  exceed  a half  hour. 
“ Usually,”  writes  Lea,  “ the  procedure  appears  to 
be  that  the  torture  was  continued  until  the  accuser 
signified  his  readiness  to  confess,  when  he  was  unbound 
and  carried  into  another  room  where  his  confession 
was  made.  If,  however,  the  confession  was  extracted 
during  the  torture,  it  was  read  over  subsequently  to 

1 Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  p.  xxv,  n.  3. 

2 Regesta,  no.  18390. 

3 Eymeric,  Diredorium,  3a  pars,  p.  481. 

4 A grave  suspicion  against  the  prisoner  was  required  before 
he  could  be  tortured. 

5 Eymeric,  Diredorium , 3a  pars,  p.  481,  col.  1. 


112 


THE  INQUISITION 


the  prisoner,  and  he  was  asked  if  it  were  true.  ...  In 
any  case,  the  record  was  carefully  made  that  the  con- 
fession was  free  and  spontaneous,  without  the  pressure 
of  force  or  fear.”  1 

“ It  is  a noteworthy  fact,  however,  that  in  the  frag- 
mentary documents  of  inquisitorial  proceedings  which 
have  reached  us,  the  references  to  torture  are  singularly 
few.  ...  In  the  six  hundred  and  thirty-six  sentences 
borne  upon  the  register  of  Toulouse  from  1309  to  1323, 
the  only  allusion  to  torture  is  in  the  recital  of  the  case 
of  Calvarie,  but  there  are  numerous  instances  in  which 
the  information  wrung  from  the  convicts  who  had  no 
hope  of  escape,  could  scarce  have  been  procured  in  any 
other  manner.  Bernard  Gui,  who  conducted  the  In- 
quisition of  Toulouse  during  this  period,  has  too 
emphatically  expressed  his  sense  of  the  utility  of 
torture  on  both  principals  and  witnesses  for  us  to 
doubt  his  readiness  in  its  employment.”  2 

Besides,  the  investigation  which  Clement  V ordered 
into  the  iniquities  of  the  Inquisition  of  Carcassonne, 
proves  clearly  that  the  accused  were  frequently  sub- 
jected to  torture.3  That  we  rarely  find  reference  to 
torture  in  the  records  of  the  Inquisition  need  not 
surprise  us.  For  in  the  beginning,  torture  was  in- 
flicted by  civil  executioners  outside  of  the  tribunal  of 
the  Inquisition;  and  even  later  on,  when  the  Inquisi- 
tors were  allowed  to  take  part  in  it,  it  was  considered 
merely  a means  of  making  the  prisoner  declare  his 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  p.  427. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.f  p.  424. 

3 Clement  V required  the  consent  of  the  Inquisitor  and  the 
local  Bishop  before  a heretic  could  be  tortured,  vel  tormentis 
exponere  illis.  Decretal  Muttorum  querela,  in  Eymeric.  Direc- 
torium , 2a  pars,  p.  112. 


THE  INQUISITION 


113 


willingness  to  confess  afterwards.  A confession  made 
under  torture  had  no  force  in  law;  the  second  con- 
fession only  was  considered  valid.  That  is  why  it 
alone,  as  a rule,  is  recorded. 

But  if  the  sufferings  of  the  victims  of  the  Inquisition 
were  not  deemed  worthy  of  mention  in  the  records, 
they  were  none  the  less  real  and  severe.  Imprudent 
or  heartless  judges  were  guilty  of  grave  abuses  in  the 
use  of  torture.  Rome,  which  had  authorized  it,  at 
last  intervened,  not,  we  regret  to  say,  to  prohibit  it 
altogether,  but  at  least  to  reform  the  abuses  which 
had  been  called  to  her  attention.  One  reform  of 
Clement  V ordered  the  Inquisition  never  to  use  torture 
without  the  Bishop’s  consent,  if  he  could  be  reached 
within  eight  days.1 

“ Bernard  Gui  emphatically  remonstrated  against 
this,  as  seriously  crippling  the  efficiency  of  the  In- 
quisition, and  proposed  to  substitute  for  it  the  mean- 
ingless phrase  that  torture  should  only  be  used  with 
mature  and  careful  deliberation , but  his  suggestion  was 
not  heeded,  and  the  Clementine  regulations  remained 
the  law  of  the  Church.”  2 

The  code  of  the  Inquisition  was  now  practically 
complete,  for  succeeding  Popes  made  no  change  of 
any  importance.  The  data  before  us  prove  that  the 
Church  forgot  her  early  traditions  of  toleration,  and 
borrowed  from  the  Roman  jurisprudence,  revived  by 
the  legists,  laws  and  practices  which  remind  one  of 
the  cruelty  of  ancient  paganism.  But  once  this  crimi- 
nal code  was  adopted,  she  endeavored  to  mitigate  the 

1 Decretal,  Multorum  querela. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  424;  Bernard  Gui,  Practica , ed.  Douais, 
4a  pars,  p.  188. 


114 


THE  INQUISITION 


cruelty  with  which  it  was  enforced.  If  this  pre- 
occupation is  not  always  visible — and  it  is  not  in  her 
condemnation  of  obdurate  heretics — we  must  at  least 
give  her  the  credit  of  insisting  that  torture  “ should 
never  imperil  life  or  injure  limb:  ” Cog  ere  extra  menibri 
diminutionem  et  mortis  periculum . 

We  will  now  ask  how  the  theologians  and  canonists 
interpreted  this  legislation,  and  how  the  tribunals  of 
the  Inquisition  enforced  it. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


Theologians,  Canonists,  and  Casuists  of  the  In- 
quisition 

The  gravity  of  the  crime  of  heresy  was  early  recog- 
nized in  the  Church.  Gratian  discussed  this  question 
in  a special  chapter  of  his  Decretum.1  Innocent  III, 
Guala,  the  Dominican,  and  the  Emperor  Frederic  II, 
as  we  have  seen,  looked  upon  heresy  as  treason  against 
Almighty  God,  i.  e.,  the  most  dreadful  of  crimes. 

The  theologians,  and  even  the  civil  authorities,  did 
not  concern  themselves  much  with  the  evil  effects  of 
heresy  upon  the  social  order,  but  viewed  it  rather  as 
an  offense  against  God.  Thus  they  made  no  dis- 
tinction between  those  teachings  which  entailed  injury 
on  the  family  and  on  society,  and  those  which  merely 
denied  certain  revealed  truths.  Innocent  III,  in  his 
constitution  of  September  23,  1207,  legislated  par- 
ticularly against  the  Patarins,  but  he  took  care  to 
point  out  that  no  heretic,  no  matter  what  the  nature 
of  his  error  might  be,  should  be  ahowed  to  escape  the 
full  penalty  of  the  law.2  Frederic  II  spoke  in  similar 
terms  in  his  Constitutions  of  1220,  1224,  and  1232. 
This  was  the  current  teaching  throughout  the  Middle 
Ages. 


1 Causa  xxxi,  q.  vii,  cap.  16. 

115 


Ep.  x,  130. 


116 


THE  INQUISITION 


But  it  is  important  to  know  what  men  then  under- 
stood by  the  word  heresy.  We  can  ascertain  this 
from  the  theologians  and  canonists,  especially  from 
St.  Raymond  of  Pennafort  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas. 
St.  Raymond  gives  four  meanings  to  the  word  heretic, 
but  from  the  standpoint  of  the  canon  law  he  says: 
“A  heretic  is  one  who  denies  the  faith.”  1 St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  is  more  accurate.  He  declares  that  no  one 
is  truly  a heretic  unless  he  obstinately  maintains  his 
error,  even  after  it  has  been  pointed  out  to  him  by 
ecclesiastical  authority.  This  is  the  teaching  of  St. 
Augustine.2 

But  by  degrees  the  word,  taken  at  first  in  a strict 
sense,  acquired  a broader  meaning.  St.  Raymond 
includes  schism  in  the  notion  of  heresy.  “ The  only 
difference  between  these  two  crimes,”  he  writes,  “ is 
the  difference  between  genus  and  species;  ” every 
schism  ends  in  heresy.  And  relying  on  the  authority 
of  St.  Jerome,  the  rigorous  canonist  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare  that  schism  is  even  a greater  crime  than  heresy. 
He  proves  this  by  the  fact  that  Core,  Dathan,  and 
Abiron,3  who  seceded  from  the  chosen  people,  were 
punished  by  the  most  terrible  of  punishments.  “From 
the  enormity  of  the  punishment,  must  we  not  argue 
the  enormity  of  the  crime?  ” St.  Raymond  therefore 
declares  that  the  same  punishment  must  be  inflicted 
upon  the  heretic  and  the  schismatic.4 

“ The  authors  of  the  treatises  on  the  Inquisition,” 

1S.  Raymundi,  Summa , lib.  i,  cap.  De  Hcereticis , sect,  i, 
Roman  Edition,  1603,  p.  39. 

2 Summa,  Ha,  Ilae,  quaest.  xi,  Conclusio;  cf.  ibid.,  rad  3um, 
quotations  from  St.  Augustine. 

3 Num.  xvi.  31-33. 

4 Loc.  dt.}  lib.  i,  cap.  De  schismatics , pp.  45-47. 


THE  INQUISITION 


117 


writes  Tanon,  “ classed  as  heretics  all  those  who 
favored  heresy,  and  all  excommunicates  who  did  not 
submit  to  the  Church  within  a certain  period.  They 
declared  that  a man  excommunicated  for  any  cause 
whatever,  who  did  not  seek  absolution  within  a year, 
incurred  by  this  act  of  rebellion  a light  suspicion  of 
heresy;  that  he  could  then  be  cited  before  the  Inquisi- 
tor to  answer  not  only  for  the  crime  which  had  caused 
his  excommunication,  but  also  for  his  orthodoxy.  If 
he  did  not  answer  this  second  summons,  he  was  at 
once  considered  excommunicated  for  heresy,  and  if  he 
remained  under  this  second  excommunication  for  a 
year,  he  was  liable  to  be  condemned  as  a real  heretic. 
The  light  suspicion  caused  by  his  first  excommunica- 
tion became  in  turn  a vehement  and  then  a violent 
suspicion  which,  together  with  his  continued  con- 
tumacy, constituted  a full  proof  of  heresy.”  1 

The  theologians  insisted  greatly  upon  respect  for 
ecclesiastical  and  especially  Papal  authority.  Every- 
thing that  tended  to  lessen  this  authority  seemed  to 
them  a practical  denial  of  the  faith.  The  canonist 
Henry  of  Susa  (Hostiensis+1271),  went  so  far  as  to 
say  that  “ whoever  contradicted  or  refused  to  accept 
the  decretals  of  the  Popes  was  a heretic.”2  Such 
disobedience  was  looked  upon  as  a culpable  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  the  papacy,  and  consequently  a form 
of  heresy. 

Superstition  was  also  classed  under  the  heading  of 
heresy.  The  canonist  Zanchino  Ugolini  tells  us  that 
he  was  present  at  the  condemnation  of  an  immoral 
priest,  who  was  punished  by  the  Inquisitors  not  for 

1 Tanon,  op.  cit.}  pp.  235,  236. 

2 In  Baluze-Mansi,  Miscellanea , vol.  ii,  p.  275. 


118 


THE  INQUISITION 


his  licentiousness,  but  because  he  said  Mass  every  day 
in  a state  of  sin,  and  urged  in  excuse  that  he  considered 
himself  pardoned  by  the  mere  fact  of  putting  on  the 
sacred  vestments.1 

The  Jews,  as  such,  were  never  regarded  as  heretics. 
But  the  usury  they  so  widely  practiced  evidenced  an 
unorthodox  doctrine  on  thievery,  which  made  them 
liable  to  be  suspected  of  heresy.  Indeed,  we  find 
several  Popes  upbraiding  them  “ for  maintaining  that 
usury  is  not  a sin.”  Some  Christians  also  fell  into  the 
same  error,  and  thereby  became  subject  to  the  In- 
quisition. Pope  Martin  V,  in  his  bull  of  November 
'6,  1419,  authorizes  the  Inquisitors  to  prosecute  these 
usurers.2 

Sorcery  and  magic  were  also  put  on  a par  with 
heresy.  Pope  Alexander  IV  had  decided  that  divin- 
ation and  sorcery  did  not  fall  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Inquisition,  unless  there  was  manifest  heresy 
involved.3  But  casuists  were  not  wanting  to  prove 
that  heresy  was  involved  in  such  cases.  The  belief 
in  the  witches’  nightly  rides  through  the  air,  led  by 
Diana  or  Herodias  of  Palestine,  was  very  widespread 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  was  held  by  some  as  late  as 
the  fifteenth  century.  The  question  whether  the  devil 
could  carry  off  men  and  women  was  warmly  debated 
by  the  theologians  of  the  time.  “ A case  adduced  by 
Albertus  Magnus,  in  a disputation  on  the  subject 
before  the  Bishop  of  Paris,  and  recorded  by  Thomas 
of  Cantimpre,  in  which  the  daughter  of  the  Count  of 
Schwalenberg  was  regularly  carried  away  every  night 

1 Tractaty  de  Hoeret.,  cap.  ii. 

2 Bull  Inter  coetera,  sent  to  the  Inquisitor  Pons  Feugeyron. 

3 Bull  of  December  9,  1257, 


THE  INQUISITION 


119 


for  several  hours,  gave  immense  satisfaction  to  the 
adherents  of  the  new  doctrine,  and  eventually  an 
ample  store  of  more  modern  instances  was  accumu- 
lated to  confirm  Satan  in  his  enlarged  privileges.”  1 
Satan,  it  seems,  imprinted  upon  his  clients  an  indelible 
mark,  the  stigma  diabolicum. 

“ In  1458,  the  Inquisitor  Nicholas  Jaquerius  re- 
marked reasonably  enough  that  even  if  the  affair  was 
an  illusion,  it  was  none  the  less  heretical,  as  the  follow- 
ers of  Diana  and  Herodias  were  necessarily  heretics 
in  their  waking  hours.”  2 

About  1250,  the  Inquisitor  Bernard  of  Como  taught 
categorically  that  the  phenomena  of  witchcraft,  espe- 
cially the  attendance  at  the  witches’  Sabbat,  were  not 
fanciful  but  real:  “This  is  proved,”  he  says,  “ from 
the  fact  that  the  Popes  permitted  witches  to  be  burned 
at  the  stake;  they  would  not  have  countenanced  this, 
if  these  persons  were  not  real  heretics,  and  their  crimes 
only  imaginary,  for  the  Church  only  punishes  proved 
crimes.”  3 Witchcraft  was,  therefore,  amenable  to  the 
tribunals  of  the  Inquisition.4 

While  the  casuists  thus  increased  the  number  of 
crimes  which  the  Inquisition  could  prosecute,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  shortened  the  judicial  procedure  then 
in  vogue. 

Following  the  Roman  law,  the  Inquisition  at  first 
recognized  three  forms  of  action  in  criminal  cases — 

1 Lea,  op.  tit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  497. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit .,  pp.  497,  498. 

3 Lucerna  Inquisitorium,  Romse,  1584,  p.  144. 

4 In  a letter  of  one  of  the  cardinals  of  the  Holy  Office,  dated 
1643,  witchcraft  is  classed  with  heresy.  Douais,  Documents,  vol. 
i,  p.  ccliv.  In  practice,  the  heretical  tendency  of  witchcraft  was 
hard  to  determine.  Each  judge,  therefore,  as  a rule,  pronounced 
sentence  according  to  his  own  judgment. 


120 


THE  INQUISITION 


accusatio,  denuntiatio , and  inquisitio.  In  the  accusatio , 
the  accuser  formally  inscribed  himself  as  able  to  prove 
his  accusation;  if  he  failed  to  do  so,  he  had  to  undergo 
the  penalty  which  the  prisoner  would  have  incurred 
{pcena  talionis ).1  “ From  the  very  beginning,  he  was 

placed  in  the  same  position  as  the  one  he  accused,  even 
to  the  extent  of  sharing  his  imprisonment.”  2 The 
denuntiatio  did  not  in  any  way  bind  the  accuser;  he 
merely  handed  in  his  testimony,  and  then  ceased  prose- 
cuting the  case;  the  judge  at  once  proceeded  to  take 
action  against  the  accused.  In  the  inquisitio , there 
was  no  one  either  to  accuse  or  denounce  the  criminal; 
the  judge  cited  the  suspected  criminal  before  him  and 
proceeded  to  try  him.  This  was  the  most  common 
method  of  procedure;  from  it  the  Inquisition  received 
its  name.3 

The  Inquisitorial  procedure  was  therefore  inspired 
by  the  Roman  law.  But  in  practice  the  accusatio , 
which  gave  the  prisoner  a chance  to  meet  the  charges 
against  him,  was  soon  abandoned.  In  fact  the  In- 
quisitors were  always  most  anxious  to  set  it  aside. 
Urban  IV  enacted  a decree,  July  28,  1262,  whereby 
they  were  allowed  to  proceed  simpliciter  et  de  piano, 
absque  advocatorum  strepitu  et  figura .4  Bernard  Gui 
insisted  on  this  in  his  Practical  Eymeric  advised  his 
associates,  when  an  accuser  appeared  before  them  who 
was  perfectly  willing  to  accept  the  pcena  talionis  in 
case  of  failure,  to  urge  the  imprudent  man  to  withdraw 

1 Tanon,  op.  cit.,  p.  260,  n.  4. 

2 Tancrede,  Or  do  judiciorum,  lib.  ii. 

3 On  these  three  forms  of  action,  cf.  Eymeric,  Directorium , 3a 
pars,  p.  413  et  seq. 

4 Bull  Pros  cunctis  of  July  28,  1262. 

6 Practica , 4a  pars,  ed.  Douais,  p.  192. 


THE  INQUISITION 


121 


his  demand.  For  he  argued  that  the  accusatio  might 
prove  harmful  to  himself,  and  besides  give  too  much 
room  for  trickery.1  In  other  words,  the  Inquisitors 
wished  to  be  perfectly  untrammeled  in  their  action. 

The  secrecy  of  the  Inquisition’s  procedure  was  one 
of  the  chief  causes  of  complaint. 

But  the  Inquisition,  dreadful  as  it  was,  did  not  lack 
defenders.  Some  of  their  arguments  were  most  ex- 
travagant and  far-fetched.  “ Paramo,  in  the  quaint 
pedantry  with  which  he  ingeniously  proves  that  God 
was  the  first  Inquisitor,  and  the  condemnation  of  Adam 
and  Eve  the  first  model  of  the  Inquisitorial  process, 
triumphantly  points  out  that  he  judges  them  in  secret, 
thus  setting  the  example  which  the  Inquisition  is 
bound  to  follow,  and  avoiding  the  subtleties  which 
the  criminals  would  have  raised  in  their  defence, 
especially  at  the  suggestion  of  the  crafty  serpent. 
That  he  called  no  witnesses  is  explained  by  the  con- 
fession of  the  accused,  and  ample  legal  authority  is 
cited  to  show  that  these  confessions  were  sufficient  to 
justify  the  conviction  and  punishment.”  2 

The  subtlety  of  the  casuists  had  full  play  when  they 
came  to  discuss  the  torture  of  the  prisoner  who  ab- 
solutely refused  to  confess.  According  to  law,  the 
torture  could  be  inflicted  but  once,  but  this  regulation 
was  easily  evaded.  For  it  was  lawful  to  subject  the 
prisoner  to  all  the  various  kinds  of  torture  in  succes- 
sion; and  if  additional  evidence  were  discovered,  the 
torture  could  be  repeated.  When  they  desired,  there- 
fore, to  repeat  the  torture,  even  after  an  interval  of 

1 Directorium , p.  414,  col.  1. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  p.  406. 


122 


THE  INQUISITION 


some  days,  they  evaded  the  law  by  calling  it  techni- 
cally not  a “ repetition  ” but  a “ continuance  of  the 
first  torture: ” Ad  continuandum  tormenta , non  ad 
iterandum , as  Eymeric  styles  it.1  This  quibbling  of 
course  gave  full  scope  to  the  cruelty  and  the  indis- 
creet zeal  of  the  Inquisitors. 

But  a new  difficulty  soon  arose.  Confessions  ex- 
torted under  torture,  had,  as  we  have  seen,  no  legal 
value.  Eymeric  himself  admitted  that  the  results  ob- 
tained in  this  way  were  very  unreliable,  and  that  the 
Inquisitors  should  realize  this  fact. 

If,  on  leaving  the  torture  chamber,  the  prisoner  re- 
iterated his  confession,  the  case  was  at  once  decided. 
But  suppose,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  confession  ex- 
torted under  torture  was  afterwards  retracted,  what 
was  to  be  done?  The  Inquisitors  did  not  agree  upon 
this  point.  Some  of  them,  like  Eymeric,  held  that 
in  this  case  the  prisoner  was  entitled  to  his  freedom. 
Others,  like  the  author  of  the  Sacro  Arsenale,  held  that 
“ the  torture  should  be  repeated,  in  order  that  the 
prisoner  might  be  forced  to  reiterate  his  first  con- 
fession which  had  evidently  compromised  him.”  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  traditional  practice  of  the 
Italian  tribunals. 

But  the  casuists  did  not  stop  here.  They  discovered 
“ that  Clement  V had  only  spoken  of  torture  in  general, 
and  had  not  specifically  alluded  to  witnesses,  whence 
they  concluded  that  one  of  the  most  shocking  abuses 
of  the  system,  the  torture  of  witnesses,  was  left  to 
the  sole  discretion  of  the  Inquisitor,  and  this  became 
the  accepted  rule.  It  only  required  an  additional  step 
to  show  that  after  the  accused  had  been  convicted  by 
1 Eymeric,  Directorium,  3a  pars,  p.  481,  col.  2. 


THE  INQUISITION 


123 


evidence  or  had  confessed  as  to  himself,  he  became  a 
witness  as  to  the  guilt  of  his  friends,  and  thus  could  be 
arbitrarily  (?)  tortured  to  betray  them.”  1 


As  a matter  of  course,  the  canonists  and  the  theo- 
logians approved  the  severest  penalties  inflicted  by  the 
Inquisition.  St.  Raymond  of  Pennafort,  however,  who 
was  one  of  the  most  favored  counsellors  of  Gregory  IX, 
still  upheld  the  criminal  code  of  Innocent  III.  The 
severest  penalties  he  defended  were  the  excommuni- 
cation of  heretics  and  schismatics,  their  banishment 
and  the  confiscation  of  their  property.2  His  Summa 
was  undoubtedly  completed  when  the  Decretal  of 
Gregory  IX  appeared,  authorizing  the  Inquisitors  to 
enforce  the  cruel  laws  of  Frederic  II. 

But  St.  Thomas,  who  wrote  at  a time  when  the 
Inquisition  was  in  full  operation,  felt  called  upon  to 
defend  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  heretics 
and  the  relapsed.  His  words  deserve  careful  con- 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  425. 

2 Lea  writes  {op.  tit.,  vol.  i,  p.  229,  note):  “Saint  Raymond  of 
Pennafort,  the  compiler  of  the  decretals  of  Gregory  IX,  who  was 
the  highest  authority  in  his  generation,  lays  it  down  as  a prin- 
ciple of  ecclesiastical  law  that  the  heretic  is  to  be  coerced  by 
excommunication  and  confiscation,  and  if  they  fail,  by  the  extreme 
exercise  of  the  secular  power.  The  man  who  was  doubtful  in  faith 
was  to  be  held  a heretic,  and  so  also  was  the  schismatic  who,  while 
believing  all  the  articles  of  religion,  refused  the  obedience  due  to 
the  Roman  Church.  All  alike  were  to  be  forced  into  the  Roman 
fold,  and  the  fate  of  Core,  Dathan  and  Abiron  was  invoked  for 
the  destruction  of  the  obstinate.”  {Summa,  lib.  i,  tit.  v,  2,  4,  8; 
tit.  vi,  i.)  This  is  a travesty  of  the  mind,  and  words  of  Saint 
Raymond.  He  merely  called  attention  to  the  lot  of  Core, 
Dathan  and  Abiron  to  show  what  a great  crime  schism  was. 
He  never  asserted  that  heretics  or  schismatics,  even  when  ob- 
durate, ought  to  be  “ destroyed.”  Summa,  lib.  i,  cap.  De 
Hcereticis  and  De  Schismaticis. 


124 


THE  INQUISITION 


sideration.  He  begins  by  answering  the  objections  that 
might  be  brought  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers 
against  his  thesis.  The  first  of  these  is  the  well- 
known  passage  of  St.  Matthew,  in  which  our  Saviour 
forbids  the  servants  of  the  householder  to  gather 
up  the  cockle  before  the  harvest  time,  lest  they  root 
up  the  wheat  with  it.1  St.  John  Chrysostom,  he  says, 
“ argues  from  this  text  that  it  is  wrong  to  put  heretics 
to  death.”  2 But  according  to  St.  Augustine  the 
words  of  the  Saviour:  “ Let  the  cockle  grow  until  the 
harvest,”  are  explained  at  once  by  what  follows:  “lest 
perhaps  gathering  up  the  cockle,  you  root  up  the  wheat 
also  with  it.”  When  there  is  no  danger  of  uprooting 
the  wheat  and  no  danger  of  schism,  violent  measures 
may  be  used:  Cum  metus  iste  non  subest  . . . non 
dormiat  severitas  discipline?  We  doubt  very  much 
whether  such  reasoning  would  have  satisfied  St.  John 
Chrysostom,  St.  Theodore  the  Studite,  or  Bishop 
Wazo,  who  understood  the  Saviour’s  prohibition  in  a 
literal  and  an  absolute  sense. 

But  this  passage  does  not  reveal  the  whole  mind  of 
the  Angelic  doctor.  It  is  more  evident  in  his  exegesis 
of  Ezechiel  xviii.  32,  Nolo  mortem  peccatoris . “ As- 

suredly,” he  writes,  “ none  of  us  desires  the  death 
of  a single  heretic.  But  remember  that  the  house  of 
David  could  not  obtain  peace  until  Absalom  was  killed 
in  the  war  he  waged  against  his  father.  In  like  manner, 
the  Catholic  Church  saves  some  of  her  children  by 
the  death  of  others,  and  consoles  her  sorrowing  heart 
by  reflecting  that  she  is  acting  for  the  general  good.”  4 

1 Matt.  xiii.  28-30. 

2 In  Matthceum,  Homil.  xlvi. 

3 Augustine,  Contra  epistol.  Parmeniani , lib.  iii,  cap.  ii. 

4 St,  Thomas,  Summa,  loc,  cit .,  ad.  4m. 


THE  INQUISITION 


125 


If  we  are  not  mistaken,  St.  Thomas  is  here  trying 
to  prove,  on  the  authority  of  St.  Augustine,  that  it 
is  sometimes  lawful  to  put  heretics  to  death. 

But  it  is  only  by  garbling  and  distorting  the  context 
that  St.  Thomas  makes  the  Bishop  of  Hippo  advocate 
the  very  penalty  which,  as  a matter  of  fact,  he  always 
denounced  most  strongly.  In  the  passage  quoted,  St. 
Augustine  was  speaking  of  the  benefit  That  ensues  to 
the  Church  from  the  suicide  of  heretics , but  he  had  "no 
idea  whatever  of  maintaining  that  the  Church  had  the 
right  to  put  to  death  her  rebellious  children.1  St. 
Thomas  misses  the  point  entirely,  and  gives  his  readers 
a false  idea  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine. 

Thinking,  however,  that  he  has  satisfactorily 
answered  all  the  objections  against  his  thesis,  he  states 
it  as  follows:  “Heretics  who  persist  in  their  error  after 
a second  admonition  ought  not  only  to  be  excommuni- 
cated, but  also  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  to  be 
put  to  death.  For,  he  argues,  it  is  much  more  wicked 
to  corrupt  the  faith  on  which  depends  the  life  of  the 
soul,  than  to  debase  the  coinage  which  provides  merely 
for  temporal  life;  wherefore,  if  coiners  and  other 
malefactors  are  justly  doomed  to  death,  much  more 
may  heretics  be  justly  slain  once  they  are  convicted. 
If,  therefore,  they  persist  in  their  error  after  two 
admonitions,  the  Church  despairs  of  their  conversion, 
and  excommunicates  them  to  ensure  the  salvation  of 
others  whom  they  might  corrupt;  she  then  abandons 
them  to  the  secular  arm  that  they  may  be  put  to 
death.”  2 

St.  Thomas  in  this  passage  makes  a mere  comparison 

1 Ep.  clxxxv,  ad  Bonifacium,  no.  32. 
lSumma)  Ha  Ilae,  qusest.  xi,  art,  3. 


126 


THE  INQUISITION 


serve  as  an  argument.  He  does  not  seem  to  realize 
that  if  his  reasoning  were  valid,  the  Church  could  go 
a great  deal  further,  and  have  the  death  penalty  in- 
flicted in  many  other  cases. 

The  fate  of  the  relapsed  heretic  had  varied  from 
Lucius  III  to  Alexander  IV.  The  bull  Ad  Abolendam 
decreed  that  converted  heretics  who  relapsed  into 
heresy  were  to  be  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  with- 
out trial.1  But  at  the  time  this  Decretal  was  pub- 
lished, the  Animadversio  debita  of  the  State  entailed 
no  severer  penalty  than  banishment  and  confiscation. 
When  this  term,  already  fearful  enough,  came  to  mean 
the  death  penalty,  the  Inquisitors  did  not  know 
whether  to  follow  the  ancient  custom  or  to  adopt  the 
new  interpretation.  For  a long  time  they  followed 
the  traditional  custom.  Bernard  of  Caux,  who  was 
undoubtedly  a zealous  Inquisitor,  is  a case  in  point. 
In  his  register  of  sentences  from  1244  to  1248,  we  meet 
with  sixty  cases  of  relapse,  not  one  of  whom  was 
punished  by  a penalty  severer  than  imprisonment. 
But  a little  later  on  the  strict  interpretation  of  the 
Animadversio  debita  began  to  prevail.  In  St.  Thomas’s 
time  it  meant  the  death  penalty;  and  we  find  him 
citing  the  bull  Ad  Abolendam2  as  his  authority  for  the 
infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  the  relapsed, 
penitent  or  impenitent,  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that 
this  document  originally  had  a totally  different  inter- 
pretation. 

His  reasoning  therefore  rests  on  a false  supposition. 
He  advocates  the  death  penalty  for  the  relapsed  in 
the  name  of  Christian  charity.  For,  he  argues,  charity 

1 Decretals,  in  cap.  ix,  Be  hcereticis,  lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 

2 Summa , Ila  Ilae,  qusest.  ix,  art.  4:  Sed  contra. 


127 


THE  INQUISITION 

has  for  its  object  the  spiritual  and  temporal  welfare 
of  one’s  neighbor.  His  spiritual  welfare  is  the  sal- 
vation of  his  soul;  his  temporal  welfare  is  life,  and 
temporal  advantages,  such  as  riches,  dignities,  and  the 
like.  These  temporal  advantages  are  subordinate  to 
the  spiritual,  and  charity  must  prevent  their  endanger- 
ing the  eternal  salvation  of  their  possessor.  Charity, 
therefore,  to  himself  and  to  others,  prompts  us  to  de- 
prive him  of  these  temporal  goods,  if  he  makes  a bad 
use  of  them.  For  if  we  allowed  the  relapsed  heretic  to 
live,  we  would  undoubtedly  endanger  the  salvation 
of  others,  either  because  he  would  corrupt  the  faithful 
whom  he  met,  or  because  his  escape  from  punishment 
would  lead  others  to  believe  they  could  deny  the  faith 
with  impunity.  The  inconstancy  of  the  relapsed  is, 
therefore,  a sufficient  reason  why  the  Church,  although 
she  receives  him  to  penance  for  his  soul’s  salvation, 
refuses  to  free  him  from  the  death  penalty. 

Such  reasoning  is  not  very  convincing.  Why  would 
not  the  life  imprisonment  of  the  heretic  safeguard  the 
faithful  as  well  as  his  death?  Will  you  answer  that 
this  penalty  is  too  trivial  to  prevent  the  faithful  from 
falling  into  heresy?  If  that  be  so,  why  not  at  once 
condemn  all  heretics  to  death,  even  when  repentant? 
That  would  terrorize  the  wavering  ones  all  the  more. 
But  St.  Thomas  evidently  was  not  thinking  of  the 
logical  consequences  of  his  reasoning.  His  one  aim 
was  to  defend  the  criminal  code  in  vogue  at  the  time. 
That  is  his  only  excuse.  For  we  must  admit  that 
rarely  has  his  reasoning  been  so  faulty  and  so  weak 
as  in  his  thesis  upon  the  coercive  power  of  the  Church, 
and  the  punishment  of  heresy. 


128 


THE  INQUISITION 


St.  Thomas  defended  the  death  penalty  without 
indicating  how  it  was  to  be  inflicted.  The  commen- 
tators who  followed  him  were  more  definite.  The 
Animadversio  debita , says  Henry  of  Susa  (Hostiensis+ 
1271),  in  his  commentary  on  the  bull  Ad  Abolendum, 
is  the  penalty  of  the  stake  (ignis  crematio).  He  de- 
fends this  interpretation  by  quoting  the  words  of 
Christ:  “If  any  one  abide  not  in  me,  he  shall  be  cast 
forth  as  a branch,  and  shall  wither,  and  they  shall 
gather  him  and  cast  him  into  the  fire,  and  he  burneth.  ’n 
Jean  d’ Andre  (+1348),  whose  commentary  carried 
equal  weight  with  Henry  of  Susa’s  throughout  the 
Middle  Ages,  quotes  the  same  text  as  authority  for 
sending  heretics  to  the  stake.1 2  According  to  this 
peculiar  exegesis,  the  law  and  custom  of  the  day 
merely  sanctioned  the  law  of  Christ.  To  regard  our 
Saviour  as  the  precursor  or  rather  the  author  of  the 
criminal  code  of  the  Inquisition  evidences,  one  must 
admit,  a very  peculiar  temper  of  mind. 

The  next  step  was  to  free  the  Church  from  all 
responsibility  in  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty — 
truly  an  extremely  difficult  undertaking. 

St.  Thomas  held,  with  many  other  theologians,  that 
heretics  condemned  by  the  Inquisition  should  be  aban- 
doned to  the  secular  arm,  judicio  sceculari . But  he 
went  further,  and  declared  it  the  duty  of  the  State  to 
put  such  criminals  to  death.3  The  State,  therefore, 

1 John,  xv,  6;  Hostiensis,  on  the  decretal  Ad  Abolendum , cap. 
xi,  in  Eymeric,  Diredorium  inquisitor um,  2a  pars,  pp.  149,  150. 

2 On  the  decretal  Ad  Abolendum , cap.  xiv,  in  Eymeric,  ibid., 
pp.  170.  171, 

3 Summa , Ila,  Ilae,  quaest.  xi,  art.  3. 


THE  INQUISITION 


129 


was  to  carry  out  this  sentence  at  least  indirectly  in  the 
name  of  the  Church. 

A contemporary  of  St.  Thomas  thus  meets  this  diffi- 
culty: “ The  Pope  does  not  execute  any  one,”  he  says, 
“ or  order  him  to  be  put  to  death;  heretics  are  executed 
by  the  law  which  the  Pope  tolerates;  they  practically 
cause  their  own  death  by  committing  crimes  which 
merit  death.”  1 The  heretic  who  received  this  answer 
to  his  objections  must  surely  have  found  it  very  far- 
fetched. He  could  easily  have  replied  that  the  Pope 
“ not  only  allowed  heretics  to  be  put  to  death,  but 
ordered  this  done  under  penalty  of  excommunication.” 
And  by  this  very  fact  he  incurred  all  the  odium  of  the 
death  penalty. 

The  casuists  of  the  Inquisition,  however,  came  to 
the  rescue,  and  tried  to  defend  the  Church  by  another 
subterfuge.  They  denounced  in  so  many  words  the 
death  penalty  and  other  similar  punishments,  while  at 
the  same  time  they  insisted  upon  the  State’s  enforcing 
them.  The  formula  by  which  they  dismissed  an  im- 
penitent or  a relapsed  heretic  was  thus  worded:  “ We 
dismiss  you  from  our  ecclesiastical  forum,  and  abandon 
you  to  the  secular  arm.  But  we  strongly  beseech  the 
secular  court  to  mitigate  its  sentence  in  such  a way  as 
to  avoid  bloodshed  or  danger  of  death.”  2 We  regret 
to  state,  however,  that  the  civil  judges  were  not 
supposed  to  take  these  words  literally.  If  they  were 
at  all  inclined  to  do  so,  they  would  have  been  quickly 
called  to  a sense  of  their  duty  by  being  excommuni- 
cated. The  clause  inserted  by  the  canonists  was  a 

1 Disputatio  inter  catholicum  et  Paterinum  hcereticumy  cap.  xii, 
in  Martene,  Thesaurus  Anecdotorum,  vol.  v,  col.  1741. 

2 Eymeric,  Directorium  inquisitorum , 3 pars,  p.  515,  col.  2. 


130 


THE  INQUISITION 


mere  legal  fiction,  which  did  not  change  matters  a 
particle. 

It  is  hard  to  understand  why  such  a formula  was 
used  at  all.  Probably  it  was  first  used  in  other  crim- 
inal cases  in  which  abandonment  to  the  secular  arm 
did  not  imply  the  death  penalty,  and  the  Inquisition 
kept  using  it  merely  out  of  respect  to  tradition.  It 
seemed  to  palliate  the  too  flagrant  contradiction  which 
existed  between  ecclesiastical  justice  and  the  teaching 
of  Christ,  and  it  gave  at  least  an  external  homage 
to  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustine,  and  the  first  Fathers 
of  the  Church.  Moreover,  as  it  furnished  a specious 
means  of  evading  by  the  merest  form  of  prohibition 
against  clerics  taking  part  in  sentences  involving  the 
effusion  of  blood  and  death,  and  the  irregularity  result- 
ing therefrom,  the  Inquisitors  used  it  to  reassure  their 
conscience. 

Finally,  however,  some  Inquisitors,  realizing  the 
emptiness  of  this  formula,  dispensed  with  it  altogether, 
and  boldly  assumed  the  full  responsibility  for  their 
sentences.  They  deemed  the  role  of  the  State  so  un- 
important in  the  execution  of  heretics,  that  they  did 
not  even  mention  it.  The  Inquisition  is  the  real  judge; 
it  lights  the  fires.  “ All  whom  we  cause  to  be  burned,” 
says  the  famous  Dominican  Sprenger  in  his  Malleus 
Maleficarum / Although  not  intended  as  an  accurate 
statement  of  fact,l 2  it  indicates  pretty  well  the  current 

lM  alleus  maleficarum  male  fleas  et  earum  hceresim  framea  con - 
terens , auct.  Jacobo  Sprengero,  Lugduni,  1660,  pars  ii,  quaest.  i, 
cap.  ii,  p.  108,  col.  2. 

2 We  must  interpret  in  the  same  sense  the  decree  of  the  Council 
of  Constance  pronouncing  the  penalty  of  the  stake  against  the 
followers  of  John  Huss,  John  Wyclif  and  Jerome  of  Prague. 
Session  xliv,  no.  23,  Harduin,  Concilia , vol.  viii,  col.  896  et 


THE  INQUISITION 


131 


idea  regarding  the  share  of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals 
in  the  punishment  of  heretics. 

It  is  evident  that  the  theologians  and  canonists  were 
simply  apologists  for  the  Inquisition,  and  interpreters 
of  its  laws.  As  a rule,  they  tried,  like  St.  Raymond 
Pennafort  and  St.  Thomas,  to  defend  the  decrees  of 
the  Popes.  We  cannot  say  that  they  succeeded  in 
their  task.  Some  by  their  untimely  zeal  rather  com- 
promised the  cause  they  endeavored  to  defend.  Others, 
going  counter  to  the  canon  law,  drew  conclusions  from 
it  that  the  Popes  never  dreamed  of,  and  in  this  way 
made  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition,  already  severe 
enough,  still  more  severe,  especially  in  the  use  of 
torture. 

seq.  The  Council  here  indicates  only  the  usual  punishment  for 
the  relapsed,  without  really  decreeing  it. 


CHAPTER  IX 


The  Inquisition  in  Operation 

We  do  not  intend  to  relate  every  detail  of  the  In- 
quisition’s action.  A brief  outline,  a sort  of  bird’s- 
eye  view,  will  suffice. 

Its  field,  although  very  extensive,  did  not  comprise 
the  whole  of  Christendom,  nor  even  all  the  Latin 
countries.  The  Scandinavian  kingdoms  escaped  it 
almost  entirely;  England  experienced  it  only  once  in 
the  case  of  the  Templars;  Castile  and  Portugal  knew 
nothing  of  it  before  the  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella. 
It  was  almost  unknown  in  France — at  least  as  an 
established  institution — except  in  the  South,  in  what 
was  called  the  county  of  Toulouse,  and  later  on  in 
Languedoc. 

The  Inquisition  was  in  full  operation  in  Aragon. 
The  Cathari,  it  seems,  were  wont  to  travel  frequently 
from  Languedoc  to  Lombardy,  so  that  upper  Italy 
had  from  an  early  period  its  contingent  of  Inquisitors. 
Frederic  II  had  it  established  in  the  two  Sicilies  and 
in  many  cities  of  Italy  and  Germany.  Honorius  IV 
(1285-1287)  introduced  it  into  Sardinia.1  Its  activity 
in  Flanders  and  Bohemia  in  the  fifteenth  century  was 
very  considerable.  These  were  the  chief  centers  of 
its  operations. 

1 Potthast,  no.  22307;  Registres  d’ Honorius  IV,  published  by 
Maurice  Prou,  1888,  no.  163. 


132 


133 


THE  INQUISITION 

Some  of  the  Inquisitors  had  an  exalted  idea  of  their 
office.  We  recall  the  ideal  portrait  of  the  perfect  In- 
quisitor drawn  by  Bernard  Gui  and  Eymeric.  But, 
by  an  inevitable  law  of  history,  the  reality  never  comes 
up  to  the  ideal. 

We  know  the  names  of  many  Inquisitors,  monks 
and  bishops.1  There  are  some  whose  memory  is 
beyond  reproach;  in  fact  the  Church  honors  them  as 
saints,  because  they  died  for  the  faith.2 

But  others  fulfilled  the  duties  of  their  office  in  a 
spirit  of  hatred  and  impatience,  contrary  both  to  nat- 
ural justice  and  to  Christian  charity.  Who  can  help 
denouncing,  for  instance,  the  outrageous  conduct  of 
Conrad  of  Marburg.  Contemporary  writers  tell  us 
that  when  heretics  appeared  before  his  tribunal,  he 
granted  them  no  delay,  but  at  once  required  them  to 
answer  yes  or  no  to  the  accusations  against  them.  If 
they  confessed  their  guilt,  they  were  granted  their 
lives,  and  thrown  into  prison;  if  they  refused  to  con- 
fess, they  were  at  once  condemned  and  sent  to  the 
stake.  Such  summary  justice  strongly  resembles  in- 
justice. 

But  Robert  the  Dominican,  known  as  Robert  the 
Bougre,  for  he  was  a converted  Patarin,  surpassed  even 
Conrad  in  cruelty.  Among  the  exploits  of  this  In- 
quisitor, special  mention  must  be  made  of  the  execu- 
tions at  Montwimer  in  Champagne.  The  Bishop, 
Moranis,  had  allowed  a large  community  of  heretics 
to  grow  up  about  him.  Robert  determined  to  punish 
the  town  severely.  In  one  week  he  managed  to  try 
all  his  prisoners.  On  May  29,  1239,  about  one  hundred 

1 Mgr.  Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  pp.  cxxix-ccix. 

1 V.  g.j  Peter  of  Verona,  assassinated  by  heretics  in  1252. 


134 


THE  INQUISITION 


and  eighty  of  them,  with  their  bishop,  were  sent  to 
the  stake.  Such  summary  proceedings  caused  com- 
plaints to  be  sent  to  Rome  against  this  cruel  Inquisitor. 
He  was  accused  of  confounding  in  his  blind  fanaticism 
the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  and  of  working  upon 
v simple  souls  so  as  to  increase  the  number  of  his  victims. 
An  investigation  proved  that  these  complaints  were 
well  founded.  In  fact,  it  revealed  such  outrages  that 
Robert  the  Bougre  was  at  first  suspended  from  his 
office,  and  finally  condemned  to  perpetual  imprison- 
ment.1 

Other  acts  of  the  Inquisition  were  no  less  odious. 
In  1280  the  Consuls  of  Carcassonne  complained  to  the 
Pope,  the  King  of  France,  and  the  episcopal  vicars  of 
the  diocese  of  the  cruelty  and  injustice  of  Jean  Galand 
in  the  use  of  torture.  He  had  inscribed  on  the  walls 
of  the  Inquisition  these  words:  domunculas  ad  tor - 
quendum  et  cruciandum  homines  diversis  generibus  tor - 
mentorum.  Some  prisoners  had  been  tortured  on  the 
rack,  and  most  of  them  were  so  cruelly  treated  that 
they  lost  the  use  of  their  arms  and  legs,  and  became 
altogether  helpless.  Some  even  died  in  great  agony 
of  their  torments.  The  complaint  continues  in  this 
tone,  and  mentions  five  or  six  times  the  great  cruelty 
of  the  tortures  inflicted. 

Philip  the  Fair,  who  was  noble-hearted  occasionally, 
addressed  a letter  May  13,  1291,  to  the  seneschal  of 
Carcassonne  in  which  he  denounced  the  Inquisitors 
for  their  cruel  torturing  of  innocent  men,  whereby 
the  living  and  the  dead  were  fraudulently  convicted; 
and  among  other  abuses  he  mentions  particularly  “ tor- 

1 Aubri  des  Trois  Fontaines,  ad  ann.  1239,  Mon.  Germ.,  SS., 
vol.  xxiii,  944,  945. 


THE  INQUISITION 


135 


tures  newly  invented.”  Another  letter  of  his  (1301) 
addressed  to  Foulques  de  Saint-Georges,  contained  a 
similar  denunciation. 

In  a bull  intended  for  Cardinals  Taillefer  de  la 
Chappelle  and  Berenger  de  Fredol,  March  13,  1306, 
Clement  Y mentions  the  complaints  of  the  citizens  of 
Carcassonne,  Albi,  and  Cordes,  regarding  the  cruelty 
practiced  in  the  prisons  of  the  Inquisition.  Several 
of  these  unfortunates  “ were  so  weakened  by  the  rigors 
of  their  imprisonment,  the  lack  of  food,  and  the  sever- 
ity of  their  tortures  ( sevitia  tormentorum) , that  they 
died.” 

The  facts  in  Savonarola’s  case  are  very  hard  to  deter- 
mine. The  official  account  of  his  interrogatory  de- 
clares that  he  was  subjected  to  three  and  a half  tratii 
di  fune.  This  was  a form  of  torture  known  as  the 
strappado . The  Signoria,  in  answer  to  the  reproaches 
of  Alexander  VI  at  their  tardiness,  declared  that  they 
had  to  deal  with  a man  of  great  endurance;  that  they 
had  assiduously  tortured  him  for  many  days  with 
slender  results.1  Burchard,  the  papal  prothonotary, 
states  that  he  was  put  to  the  torture  seven  times.  It 
made  very  little  difference  whether  these  tortures  were 
inflicted  per  modum  continuationis  or  per  modum  itera- 
tionis , as  the  casuist  of  the  Inquisition  put  it.  At 
any  rate,  it  was  a crying  abuse.2 

We  may  learn  something  of  the  brutality  of  the 
Inquisitors  from  the  remorse  felt  by  one  of  them. 
He  had  inflicted  the  torture  of  the  burning  coals  upon 
a sorceress.  The  unfortunate  woman  died  soon  after- 

1 Villari,  La  storia  di  Girolamo  Savonarola,  Firenze,  1887,  vol. 
ii,  p.  197. 

2 H.  Lucas,  Fra  Girolamo  Savonarola , a Biographical  Study  '. 
London,  Sands,  1905. 


136 


THE  INQUISITION 


wards  in  prison  as  a result  of  her  torments.  The 
Inquisitor,  knowing  he  had  caused  her  death,  wrote 
John  XXII  for  dispensation  from  the  irregularity  he 
had  thereby  incurred. 

But  the  greatest  excesses  of  the  Inquisition  were  due 
to  the  political  schemes  of  sovereigns.  Such  instances 
were  by  no  means  rare.  Hardly  had  the  Inquisition 
been  established,  when  Frederic  II  tried  to  use  it  for 
political  purposes.  He  was  anxious  to  put  the  prosecu- 
tion for  heresy  in  the  hands  of  his  royal  officers,  rather 
than  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops  and  the  monks. 

[When,  therefore,  in  1233,  he  boasted  in  a letter  to 
Gregory  IX  that  he  had  put  to  death  a great  number 
of  heretics  in  his  kingdom,  the  Pope  answered  that 
he  was  not  at  all  deceived  by  this  pretended  zeal.  He 
knew  full  well  that  the  Emperor  wished  simply  to  get 
rid  of  his  personal  enemies,  and  that  he  had  put  to 
death  many  who  were  not  heretics  at  all. 

The  personal  interests  of  Philip  the  Fair  were  chiefly 
responsible  for  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  the  Tem- 
plars. Clement  V himself  and  the  ecclesiastical  judges 
were  both  unfortunately  guilty  of  truckling  in  the 
whole  affair.  But  their  unjust  condemnation  was  due 
chiefly  to  the  king’s  desire  to  confiscate  their  great 
possessions.1  ' 

1 The  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition  were  perhaps  never  more 
cruel  than  in  the  case  of  the  Templars.  At  Paris,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Ponsard  de  Gisiac,  thirty-six  Templars  perished 
under  torture.  At  Sens,  Jacques  de  Saciac  said  that  twenty-five 
had  died  of  torment  and  suffering.  (Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iii,  p.  262.) 
The  Grand  Master,  Jacques  Molay,  owed  his  fife  to  the  vigor  of 
his  constitution.  Confessions  extorted  by  such  means  were 
altogether  valueless.  Despite  all  his  efforts,  Philip  the  Fair 
never  succeeded  in  obtaining  a formal  condemnation  of  the 
Order. 


THE  INQUISITION 


137 


Joan  of  Arc  was  also  a victim  demanded  by  the 
political  interests  of  the  day.  If  the  Bishop  of  Beau- 
vais, Pierre  Cauchon,  had  not  been  such  a bitter 
English  partisan,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  tribunal 
over  which  he  presided  would  not  have  brought  in  the 
verdict  of  guilty,  which  sent  her  to  the  stake;1  she 
would  never  have  been  considered  a heretic  at  all, 
much  less  a relapsed  one. 

It  would  be  easy  to  cite  many  instances  of  the  same, 
kind,  especially  in  Spain.  If  there  was  any  place  in 
the  world  where  the  State  interfered  unjustly  in  the 
trials  of  the  Inquisition,  it  was  in  the  kingdom  of 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  the  kingdom  of  Philip  II.2 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  we  must  not  infer  that 
the  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition  were  always  guilty 
of  cruelty  and  injustice;  we  ought  simply  to  conclude 
that  too  frequently  they  were.  Even  one  case  of 
brutality  and  injustice  deserves  perpetual  odium. 

The  severest  penalties  the  Inquisition  could  inflict 
(apart  from  the  minor  penalties  of  pilgrimages,  wear- 
ing the  crosses,  etc.),  were  imprisonment,  abandonment 
to  the  secular  arm,  and  confiscation  of  property. 

“ Imprisonment,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  In- 
quisition, was  not  a punishment,  but  a means  by  which 

1 The  greatest  crime  of  the  trial  was  the  substitution,  in  the 
documents,  of  a different  form  of  abjuration  from  the  one  Joan 
read  near  the  church  of  Saint-Ouen. 

2 The  complaints  of  various  Popes  proves  this.  Cf.  Hefele, 
Le  Cardinal  Ximenes , Paris,  1857,  pp.  265-374.  Langlois, 
V Inquisition  d’apres  les  travaux  recents,  Paris,  1902,  pp.  89-141; 
Bernaldez,  Historia  de  los  Reyes : Cronicas  de  los  reyes  de  Castilla , 
Fernandez  y Isabel,  Madrid,  1878;  Rodrigo,  Historia  verdadera 
de  la  Inquisicion , 3 vol.,  Madrid,  1876-1877. 


138 


THE  INQUISITION 


the  penitent  could  obtain,  on  the  bread  of  tribulation 
and  the  water  of  affliction,  pardon  from  God  for  his 
sins,  while  at  the  same  time  he  was  closely  supervised 
to  see  that  he  persevered  in  the  right  path,  and  was 
segregated  from  the  rest  of  the  flock,  thus  removing 
all  danger  of  infection.”  1 

Heretics  who  confessed  their  errors  during  the  time 
of  grace  were  imprisoned  only  for  a short  time;  those 
who  confessed  under  torture  or  under  threat  of  death 
were  imprisoned  for  life;  this  was  the  usual  punish- 
ment for  the  relapsed  during  most  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  It  was  the  only  penalty  that  Bernard  of 
Caux  (1244-1248)  inflicted  upon  them. 

“ There  were  two  kinds  of  imprisonment,”  writes 
Lea,  “ the  milder  or  murus  largus , and  the  harsher, 
known  as  murus  stridus,  or  durus , or  ardus.  All  were 
on  bread  and  water,  and  the  confinement,  according 
to  rule,  was  solitary,  each  penitent  in  a separate  cell, 
with  no  access  allowed  to  him,  to  prevent  his  being 
corrupted,  or  corrupting  others;  but  this  could  not 
be  strictly  enforced,  and  about  1306  Geoffroi  d’Ablis 
stigmatizes  as  an*  abuse  the  visits  of  clergy  and  the 
laity  of  both  sexes,  permitted  to  prisoners.”  2 

As  far  back  as  1282,  Jean  Galand  had  forbidden  the 
jailer  of  the  prison  of  Carcassonne  to  eat  or  take 
recreation  with  the  prisoners,  or  to  allow  them  to  take 
recreation,  or  to  keep  servants. 

Husband  and  wife,  however,  were  allowed  access  to 
each  other  if  either  or  both  were  imprisoned;  and  late 
in  the  fourteenth  century  Eymeric  declared  that  zealous 
Catholics  might  be  admitted  to  visit  prisoners,  but 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  484. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  486,  487. 


THE  INQUISITION 


139 


not  women  and  simple  folk  who  might  be  perverted, 
for  converted  prisoners,  he  added,  were  very  liable  to 
relapse,  and  to  infect  others,  and  usually  died  at  the 
stake.1 

“ In  the  milder  form,  or  murus  largus , the  prisoners 
apparently  were,  if  well  behaved,  allowed  to  take 
exercise  in  the  corridors,  where  sometimes  they  had 
opportunities  of  converse  with  each  other,  and  with 
the  outside  world.  This  privilege  was  ordered  to  be 
given  to  the  aged  and  infirm  by  the  cardinals  who 
investigated  the  prison  of  Carcassonne,  and  took 
measures  to  alleviate  its  rigors.  In  the  harsher  con- 
finement, or  murus  strictus,  the  prisoner  was  thrust 
into  the  smallest,  darkest,  and  most  noisome  of  cells, 
with  chains  on  his  feet, — in  some  cases  chained  to  the 
wall.  This  penance  was  inflicted  on  those  whose 
offences  had  been  conspicuous,  or  who  had  perjured 
themselves  by  making  incomplete  confessions,  the 
matter  being  wholly  at  the  discretion  of  the  Inquisitor. 
I have  met  with  one  case,  in  1328,  of  aggravated  false- 
witness,  condemned  to  the  murus  strictissimus,  with 
chains  on  both  hands  and  feet.  When  the  culprits 
were  members  of  a religious  order,  to  avoid  scandal, 
the  proceedings  were  usually  held  in  private,  and  the 
imprisonment  would  be  ordered  to  take  place  in  a 
convent  of  their  own  order.  As  these  buildings,  how- 
ever, were  unprovided  with  cells  for  the  punishment 
of  offenders,  this  was  probably  of  no  great  advantage 
to  the  victim.  In  the  case  of  Jeanne,  widow  of  B.  de 
la  Tour,  a nun  of  Lespinasse,  in  1246,  who  had  com- 
mitted acts  of  both  Catharan  and  Waldensian  heresy, 
and  had  prevaricated  in  her  confession,  the  sentence 
1 Eymeric,  Diredorium,  p.  507. 


140 


THE  INQUISITION 


was  confinement  in  a separate  cell  in  her  own  convent, 
where  no  one  was  to  enter  or  see  her,  her  food  being 
pushed  in  through  an  opening  left  for  the  purpose — 
in  fact,  the  living  tomb  known  as  the  in  pace.”  1 

In  these  wretched  prisons  the  diet  was  most  meager. 
But  “ while  the  penance  prescribed  was  a diet  of  bread 
and  water,  the  Inquisition,  with  unwonted  kindness, 
did  not  object  to  its  prisoners  receiving  from  their 
friends  contributions  of  food,  wine,  money,  and  gar- 
ments, and  among  its  documents  are  such  frequent 
allusions  to  this  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  an  estab- 
lished custom.”  2 

The  number  of  prisoners,  even  with  a life  sentence, 
was  rather  considerable.  The  collections  of  sentences 
that  we  possess  give  us  precise  information  on  this 
point. 

We  have,  for  instance,  the  register  of  Bernard  of 
Caux,  the  Inquisitor  of  Toulouse  for  the  years  1244- 
1246.  Out  of  fifty-two  of  his  sentences,  twenty-seven 
heretics  wrere  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment.  We 
must  not  forget  also  that  several  of  them  contain  con- 
demnations of  many  individuals;  the  second,  for 
instance,  condemned  thirty-three  persons,  twelve  of 
whom  were  to  be  imprisoned  for  life;  the  fourth  con- 
demned eighteen  persons  to  life  imprisonment.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  register  does  not  record  one  case 
of  abandonment  to  the  secular  arm,  even  for  relapse 
into  heresy.3 

Bernard  must  be  considered  a severe  Inquisitor. 
The  register  of  the  notary  of  Carcassonne,  published 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  487. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  491. 

* Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  pp.  cclx-cchd;  vol.  ii,  pp.  i-89. 


THE  INQUISITION 


141 


by  Mgr.  Douais,  contains  for  the  years  1249-1255  two 
hundred  and  seventy-eight  articles.  But  imprison- 
ment very  rarely  figured  among  the  penances  inflicted. 
The  usual  penalty  was  enforced  service  in  the  Holy 
Land,  passagium , transitus  ultramarinus.1 

Bernard  Gui,  Inquisitor  at  Toulouse  for  seventeen 
years  (1308-1325),  was  called  upon  to  condemn  nine 
hundred  and  thirty  heretics,  of  whom  two  were  guilty 
of  false  witness,  eighty-nine  were  dead,  and  forty 
were  fugitives.  In  the  eighteen  Sermones  or  Autos- 
da-fe  in  which  he  rendered  the  sentences  we  possess  to- 
day, he  condemned  three  hundred  and  seven  to  prison, 
i . 6.,  about  one-third  of  all  the  heretics  brought  before 
his  tribunal.2 

The  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition  of  Pamiers  in  the 
Sermones  of  1318-1324,  held  ninety-eight  heresy  trials. 
The  records  declare  that  two  were  acquitted;  and  say 
nothing  of  the  penalty  inflicted  upon  twenty-one  others 
who  were  tried.  The  most  common  penalty  was  life 
imprisonment.  In  the  Sermo  of  March  8,  thirteen 
heretics  were  sentenced  to  prison,  eight  of  whom  were 
set  at  liberty  on  July  4,  1322;  these  latter  were  con- 
demned to  wear  single  or  double  crosses.  Six  out  of 
ten,  tried  on  August  2,  1321,  were  sentenced  for  life 
to  the  German  prison.  On  June  19,  1323,  six  out  of 
ten  tried  were  condemned  to  prison  ( murus  strictus ); 
on  August  12,  1324,  ten  out  of  eleven  tried  were  con- 
demned for  life  to  the  strict  prison:  ad  strictum  muri 
Carcassonne  inquisitionis  carcerem  in  vinculis  ferreis  ac 

1 Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  pp.  cclxvii-cclxxxiv;  vol.  ii,  pp. 
115,  243. 

2 Douais,  Documents,  vol.  i,  pp.  ccv,  cf.  Appendix  B. 

Note  that  the  register  records  930  condemnations.  Cf.  Lea, 
op.  tit.,  vol.  i,  p.  550. 


142 


THE  INQUISITION 


in  pane  et  aqua.  We  gather  from  these  statistics  that 
the  Inquisition  of  Pamiers  inflicted  the  penalty  of  life 
imprisonment  as  often  as,  if  not  more  than,  the  In- 
quisition of  Toulouse. 

We  have  seen  above  that  the  penalty  of  imprison- 
ment was  sometimes  mitigated  and  even  commuted. 
Life  imprisonment  was  sometimes  commuted  into 
temporary  imprisonment,  and  both  into  pilgrimages 
or  wearing  the  cross.  Twenty,  imprisoned  by  the 
Inquisition  of  Pamiers,  were  set  at  liberty  on  condition 
that  they  wore  the  cross.  This  clemency  was  not 
peculiar  to  the  Inquisition  of  Pamiers.  In  1328,  by 
a single  sentence,  twenty-three  prisoners  of  Carcas- 
sonne were  set  at  liberty,  and  other  slight  penances 
substituted. 

In  Bernard  Gui’s  register  of  sentences  we  read  of  one 
hundred  and  nineteen  cases  of  release  from  prison  with 
the  obligation  to  wear  the  cross,  and,  of  this  number, 
fifty-one  were  subsequently  released  from  even  the 
minor  penalty.  Prisoners  were  sometimes  set  at  liberty 
on  account  of  sickness,  v.  g .,  women  with  child,  or  to 
provide  for  their  families. 

“ In  1246  we  find  Bernard  de  Caux,  in  sentencing 
Bernard  Sabbatier,  a relapsed  heretic,  to  perpetual 
imprisonment,  adding  that  as  the  culprit’s  father  is 
a good  Catholic,  and  old  and  sick,  the  son  may  remain 
with  him,  and  support  him  as  long  as  he  lives,  mean- 
while wearing  the  crosses.”  1 

Assuredly  this  penalty  of  imprisonment  was  terrible, 
but  while  we  may  denounce  some  Inquisitors  for 
having  made  its  suffering  more  intense  out  of  malice 


1 Lea,  op.  tit .,  vol.  i,  486. 


THE  INQUISITION 


143 


or  indifference,  we  must  also  admit  that  others  some- 
times mitigated  its  severity. 


The  condemnation  of  obstinate  heretics,  and  later  on, 
of  the  relapsed,  permitted  no  exercise  of  clemency. 
How  many  heretics  were  abandoned  to  the  secular 
arm,  and  thus  sent  to  the  stake,  is  impossible  to  deter- 
mine. However,  we  have  some  interesting  statistics 
of  the  more  important  tribunals  on  this  point.  The 
portion  of  the  register  of  Bernard  de  Caux  which  relates 
to  impenitent  heretics  has  been  lost,  but  we  have  the 
sentences  of  the  Inquisition  of  Pamiers  (1318-1324), 
and  of  Toulouse  (1308-1323).  In  nine  Sermones  or 
Autos-da-fe  1 of  the  tribunal  of  Pamiers,  condemning 
sixty-four  persons,  only  five  heretics  were  abandoned 
to  the  secular  arm. 

Bernard  Gui  presided  over  eighteen  autos-da-fe , and 
condemned  nine  hundred  and  thirty  heretics;  and  yet 
he  abandoned  only  forty-two  to  the  secular  arm.2 
These  Inquisitors  were  far  more  lenient  than  Robert 
the  Bougre.  Taking  all  in  all,  the  Inquisition  in  its 
operation  denoted  a real  progress  in  the  treatment  of 
criminals;  for  it  not  only  put  an  end  to  the  summary 
vengeance  of  the  mob,  but  it  diminished  considerably 
the  number  of  those  sentenced  to  death.3 

1 The  Sermo  generalis  after  which  the  sentences  were  solemnly 
pronounced  by  the  Inquisitors  was  called  in  Spain  auto-da-fe. 

2 Cf.  the  sentences  of  Bernard  Gui  in  Douais,  Documents , vol. 
i,  p.  ccv,  and  Appendix  B. 

3 Even  while  the  Inquisition  was  in  full  operation,  the  heretics 
who  managed  to  escape  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  had  no  reason 
to  congratulate  themselves.  For  we  read  that  Raymond  VII, 
Count  of  Toulouse  in  1248,  caused  eighty  heretics  to  be  burned 
at  Berlaiges,  near  Agen,  after  they  had  confessed  in  his  presence, 
without  giving  them  the  opportunity  of  recanting. 


144 


THE  INQUISITION 


We  notice  at  Pamiers  that  only  one  out  of  thirteen, 
while  at  Toulouse  but  one  in  twenty-two,  was  sen- 
tenced to  death.  Although  terrible  enough,  these 
figures  are  far  different  from  the  exaggerated  statistics 
imagined  by  the  fertile  brains  of  ignorant  controver- 
sialists.1 

It  is  true  that  many  writers  are  haunted  by  the 
cruelty  of  the  Spanish  or  German  tribunals  which 
sent  to  the  stake  a great  number  of  victims,  i.  e.,  con- 
versos  and  witches. 

From  the  very  beginning,  the  Spanish  Inquisition 
acted  with  the  utmost  severity.  “ Twelve  hundred 
conversos , penitents,  obdurate  and  relapsed  heretics 
were  present  at  the  auto-da-fe  in  Toledo,  March,  1487 ; 
and,  according  to  the  most  conservative  estimate, 
Torquemada  sent  to  the  stake  about  two  thousand 
heretics  ” 2 in  twelve  years. 

“ During  this  same  period,”  says  a contemporary 
historian,  “ fifteen  thousand  heretics  did  penance,  and 
were  reconciled  to  the  Church,”  3 That  makes  a total 

1 Of  course  we  do  not  here  refer  to  honest  historians  like 
Langlois  who  estimates  that  one  heretic  out  of  every  ten  was 
abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  (op.  cit.,  p.  106).  Dom  Brial 
erroneously  states  in  his  preface  to  vol.  xix  of  the  Recueil 
des  Historiens  des  Gaules  (p.  xxiii)  that  Bernard  Gui  burned  637 
heretics.  This  figure  represented  the  number  of  heretics  then 
known  to  be  condemned , but  only  40  of  these  were  abandoned 
to  the  secular  arm.  The  exact  number  is  42  out  of  930.  Cf. 
Douais,  Documents , vol.  i,  p.  ccv,  and  Appendix  B. 

2 Langlois,  L’  Inquisition  d'apres  des  tableaux  recents , 1902,  pp. 
105,  106.  This  number,  without  being  certain,  is  asserted  by 
contemporaries,  Pulgar  and  Marineo  Siculo.  Cf.  Hefele,  Le 
Cardinal  Ximenes , Paris,  1856,  pp.  290,  291.  Another  con- 
temporary, Bernaldes,  speaks  of  over  700  burned  from  1481-1488; 
cf.  Gams,  Kir cheng eschichte  von  Spanien , vol.  iii,  2,  p.  69. 

3 Pulgar,  in  H6fele,  op,  cit,}  p,  291. 


THE  INQUISITION 


145 


of  seventeen  thousand  trials.  We  can  thus  under- 
stand how  Torquemada,  although  grossly  calumniated, 
came  to  be  identified  with  this  period,  during  which  so 
many  thousands  of  conversos  appeared  before  the 
Spanish  tribunals. 

The  zeal  of  the  Inquisitors  seemed  to  abate  after  a 
time.1  Perhaps  they  thought  it  better  to  keep  the 
Jews  and  the  Mussulmans  in  the  Church  by  kindness. 
But  kindness  failed  just  as  force  had  failed.  After 
one  hundred  years,  the  number  of  obdurate  conversos 
was  as  great  as  ever.  Several  ardent  advocates  of 
force  advised  the  authorities  to  send  them  all  to  the 
stake.  But  the  State  determined  to  drive  the  Moriscos 
from  Spain,  as  it  had  banished  the  Jews  in  1492. 
Accordingly  in  September,  1609,  a law  was  passed 
decreeing  the  banishment,  under  penalty  of  death,  of 
all  Moriscos,  men,  women,  and  children.  Five 
hundred  thousand  persons,  about  one  sixteenth  of  the 
population  were  thus  banished  from  Spain,  and  forced 
to  seek  refuge  on  the  coasts  of  Barbary.  “ Behold,” 
writes  Brother  Bleda,  “ the  most  glorious  event  in 
Spain  since  the  times  of  the  Apostles;  religious  unity 
is  now  secured;  an  era  of  prosperity  is  certainly  about 
to  dawn.” 2 This  era  of  prosperity  so  proudly  an- 
nounced by  the  Dominican  zealot  never  came.  This 
extreme  measure,  which  pleased  him  so  greatly,  in 

1 “The  Inquisition  of  Valencia  condemned  one  hundred  and 
twelve  conversos  in  1538  (of  whom  fourteen  were  sent  to  the 
stake);  &t  the  auto-da-fe  of  Seville,  September  24,  1559,  three 
were  burned,  and  eight  were  reconciled  and  sentenced  to  life 
imprisonment;  on  June  6,  1585,  the  Inquisitors  of  Saragossa  in 
their  account  to  Philip  II  speak  of  having  reconciled  sixty-three, 
and  of  having  sent  five  to  the  stake.”  Langlois,  op.  cit .,  p.  106. 

2 Cf.  Bleda,  Defensio  fidei  in  causa  neophytorum  sive  Moris- 
corum  regni  Valentini  totiusque  Hispanioe,  Valencia,  1610. 


146 


THE  INQUISITION 


reality  weakened  Spain,  by  depriving  her  of  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  her  subjects. 

The  witchcraft  fever  which  spread  over  Europe  in 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  stimulated  to  an 
extraordinary  degree  the  zeal  of  the  Inquisitors.  The 
bull  of  Innocent  VIII,  Summis  Decider antes,  December 
5,  1484,  made  matters  worse.  The  Pope  admitted 
that  men  and  women  could  have  immoral  relations 
with  demons,  and  that  sorcerers  by  their  magical 
incantations  could  injure  the  harvests,  the  vineyards, 
the  orchards  and  the  fields.1 

He  also  complained  of  the  folly  of  those  ecclesiastics 
and  laymen  who  opposed  the  Inquisition  in  its  prosecu- 
tion of  heretical  sorcerers,  and  concluded  by  conferring 
additional  powers  upon  the  Dominican  Inquisitors,  In- 
stitoris  and  Sprenger,  the  author  of  the  famous  Malleus 
Maleftcarum. 

Innocent  VIII  assuredly  had  no  intention  of  commit- 
ting the  Church  to  a belief  in  the  phenomena  he  men- 
tioned in  his  bull,  but  his  personal  opinion  did  have 
an  influence  upon  the  canonists  and  Inquisitors  of  his 
day;  this  is  clear  from  the  trials  for  witchcraft  held 
during  this  period.2  It  is  impossible  to  estimate  the 
number  of  sorcerers  condemned.  Louis  of  Paramo 
triumphantly  declared  that  in  a century  and  a half 
the  Holy  Office  sent  to  the  stake  over  thirty  thousand.3 
Of  course  we  must  take  such  round  numbers  with  a 
grain  of  salt,  as  they  always  are  greatly  exaggerated. 

1 BnUarium , vol.  v,  p.  296  and  seq.,  and  Pegna’s  BuUarium  in 
Eymeric,  Directorium  Inquisit .,  p.  83. 

2 On  this  question,  cf.  Janssen-Pastor,  Geschichte  des  deutschen 
Volkes , vol.  viii,  Fribourg,  1894,  p.  507  and  seq. 

3 De  Origine  Officii  sanctce  Inquisitionis,  p.  206. 


THE  INQUISITION 


147 


But  the  fact  remains  that  the  condemnations  for 
sorcery  were  so  numerous  as  to  stagger  belief.  The 
Papacy  itself  recognized  the  injustice  of  its  agents. 
For  in  1637  instructions  were  issued  stigmatizing  the 
conduct  of  the  Inquisitors  on  account  of  their  arbi- 
trary and  unjust  prosecution  of  sorcerers;  they  were 
accused  of  extorting  from  them  by  cruel  tortures  con- 
fessions that  were  valueless,  and  of  abandoning  them 
to  the  secular  arm  without  sufficient  cause.1 

Confiscation,  though  not  so  severe  a penalty  as  the 
stake,  bore  very  heavily  upon  the  victims  of  the  In- 
quisition. The  Roman  laws  classed  the  crime  of  heresy 
with  treason,  and  visited  it  with  a principal  penalty, 
death,  and  a secondary  penalty,  confiscation.  They 
decreed  that  all  heretics,  without  exception,  forfeited 
their  property  the  very  day  they  wavered  in  the  faith. 
Actual  confiscation  of  goods  did  not  take  place  in  the 
case  of  those  penitents  who  had  deserved  no  severer 
punishment  than  temporary  imprisonment.  Bernard 
Gui  answered  those  who  objected  to  this  ruling,  by 
showing  that,  as  a matter  of  fact,  there  was  no  real 
pecuniary  loss  involved.  For,  he  argued:  “Second- 
ary penances  are  inflicted  only  upon  those  heretics  who 
denounce  their  accomplices.  But,  by  this  denuncia- 
tion, they  ensure  the  discovery  and  arrest  of  the 
guilty  ones,  who,  without  their  aid,  would  have  es- 
caped punishment;  the  goods  of  these  heretics  are  at 
once  confiscated,  which  is  certainly  a positive  gain.”  2 
Actual  confiscation  took  place  in  the  case  of  all  obdurate 

1 Pignatelli,  Consultationes  novissimce  canonicce,  Venetiis,  2 in 
fol.,  vol.  i,  p.  505,  Consultatio  123. 

2 Practica , 3 pars,  p.  185. 


148 


THE  INQUISITION 


and  relapsed  heretics  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm, 
with  all  penitents  condemned  to  perpetual  imprison- 
ment, and  with  all  suspects  who  had  managed  to  escape 
the  Inquisition,  either  by  flight  or  by  death.  The 
heretic  who  died  peacefully  in  bed  before  the  Inqui- 
sition could  lay  hands  upon  him  was  considered  con- 
tumacious, and  treated  as  such;  his  remains  were 
exhumed,  and  his  property  confiscated.  This  last  fact 
accounts  for  the  incredible  frequency  of  prosecutions 
against  the  dead.  Of  the  six  hundred  and  thirty-six 
cases  tried  by  Bernard  Gui,  eighty-eight  were  post- 
humous. As  a general  rule,  the  confiscation  of  the 
heretic’s  property,  which  so  frequently  resulted  from 
the  trials  of  the  Inquisition,  had  a great  deal  to  do 
with  the  interest  they  aroused.  We  do  not  say  that 
the  Holy  Office  systematically  increased  the  number 
of  its  condemnations  merely  to  increase  its  pecuniary 
profits.  But  abuses  of  this  kind  were  inevitable.  We 
know  they  existed,  because  the  Popes  denounced  them 
strongly,  although  they  were  too  rare  to  deserve  more 
than  a passing  mention.  But  would  the  ecclesiastical 
and  lay  princes  who,  in  varying  proportions,  shared 
with  the  Holy  Office  in  these  confiscations,  and  who 
in  some  countries  appropriated  them  all,  have  accorded 
to  the  Inquisition  that  continual  good-will  and  help 
which  wras  the  condition  of  its  prosperity,  without 
w7hat  Lea  calls  “ the  stimulant  of  pillage  ? ” We  may 
very  w^ell  doubt  it.  . . . That  is  w7hy,  in  point  of  fact, 
their  zeal  for  the  faith  languished  wfienever  pecuniary 
gain  w7as  not  forthcoming.  “ In  our  days,”  writes  the 
Inquisitor  Eymeric  rather  gloomily,  “ there  are  no 
more  rich  heretics,  so  that  princes,  not  seeing  much 
money  in  prospect,  will  not  put  themselves  to  any 


THE  INQUISITION 


149 


expense;  it  is  a pity  that  so  salutary  an  institution  as 
ours  should  be  so  uncertain  of  its  future.”  1 

Most  historians  have  said  little  or  nothing  about  the 
money  side  of  the  Inquisition.  Lea  was  the  first  to 
give  it  the  attention  it  deserved.  He  writes:  “ In 
addition  to  the  misery  inflicted  by  these  wholesale  con- 
fiscations on  the  thousands  of  innocent  and  helpless 
women  and  children  thus  stripped  of  everything,  it 
would  be  almost  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  evil 
which  they  entailed  upon  all  classes  in  the  business 
of  daily  life.”  2 There  was  indeed  very  little  security 
in  business,  for  the  contracts  of  a hidden  heretic  were 
essentially  null  and  void,  and  could  be  rescinded  as 
soon  as  his  guilt  was  discovered,  either  during  his  life- 
time or  after  his  death.  In  view  of  such  a penal  code, 
we  can  understand  why  Lea  should  write:  “While  the 
horrors  of  the  crowded  dungeon  can  scarce  be  ex- 
aggerated, yet  more  effective  for  evil  and  more  widely 
exasperating  was  the  sleepless  watchfulness  which  was 
ever  on  the  alert  to  plunder  the  rich  and  to  wrench 
from  the  poor  the  hard-earned  gains  on  which  a family 
depended  for  support.”  3 


This  summary  of  the  acts  of  the  Inquisition  is  at 
best  but  a brief  and  very  imperfect  outline.  But  a 
more  complete  study  would  not  afford  us  any  deeper 
insight  into  its  operation. 

Human  passions  are  responsible  for  the  many  abuses 
of  the  Inquisition.  The  civil  power  in  heresy  trials 

1 Langlois,  op.  cit.,  pp.  75-78. 

2 Lea,  op.  cit.,  p.  522. 

3 Lea,  op.  cit.,  p.  480. 


150 


THE  INQUISITION 


was  far  from  being  partial  to  the  accused.  On  the 
contrary,  it  would  seem  that  the  more  pressure  the 
State  brought  to  bear  upon  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals, 
the  more  arbitrary  their  procedure  became. 

We  do  not  deny  that  the  zeal  of  the  Inquisitors 
was  at  times  excessive,  especially  in  the  use  of  torture. 
But  some  of  their  cruelty  may  be  explained  by  their 
sincere  desire  for  the  salvation  of  the  heretic.  They 
regarded  the  confession  of  the  suspects  as  the  begin- 
ning of  their  conversion.  They  therefore  believed  any 
means  used  for  that  purpose  justified.  They  thought 
that  an  Inquisitor  had  done  something  praiseworthy, 
when,  even  at  the  cost  of  cruel  torments,  he  freed  a 
heretic  from  his  heresy.  He  was  sorry  indeed  to  be 
obliged  to  use  force;  but  that  was  not  altogether  his 
fault,  but  the  fault  of  the  laws  which  he  had  to  enforce. 

Most  men  regard  the  auto-da-fe  as  the  worst  horror 
of  the  Inquisition.  It  is  hardly  ever  pictured  without 
burning  flames  and  ferocious  looking  executioners. 
But  an  auto-da-fe  did  not  necessarily  call  for  either 
stake  or  executioner.  It  was  simply  a solemn  “ Ser- 
mon,” which  the  heretics  about  to  be  condemned  had 
to  attend.1  The  death  penalty  was  not  always  in- 
flicted at  these  solemnities,  which  were  intended  to 
impress  the  imagination  of  the  people.  Seven  out  of 
eighteen  autos-da-fe  presided  over  by  the  famous  In- 
quisitor, Bernard  Gui,  decreed  no  severer  penalty  than 
imprisonment. 

We  have  seen,  moreover,  that  in  many  places,  even 
in  Spain,  at  a certain  period,  the  number  of  heretics 
condemned  to  death  was  rather  small,  Even  Lea, 


1 On  these  “ Sermons/’  cf.  Tanon,  op.,  cit.  pp.  425-431. 


THE  INQUISITION 


151 


whom  no  one  can  accuse  of  any  great  partiality  for 
the  Church  is  forced  to  state:  “ The  stake  consumed 
comparatively  few  victims.”  1 

In  fact,  imprisonment  and  confiscation  were  as  a rule 
the  severest  penalties  inflicted. 


1 Op.  cit.y  vol.  i,  p.  480. 


CHAPTER  X 


A Criticism  of  the  Theory  and  Practice  of  the 
Inquisition 

Such  was  the  development  for  over  one  thousand 
years  (200-1300)  of  the  theory  of  Catholic  writers  on 
the  coercive  power  of  the  Church  in  the  treatment  of 
heresy.  It  began  with  the  principle  of  absolute  tolera- 
tion; it  ended  with  the  stake. 

During  the  era  of  the  persecutions,  the  Church,  who 
was  suffering  herself  from  pagan  intolerance,  merely  ex- 
communicated heretics,  and  tried  to  win  them  back 
to  the  orthodox  faith  by  the  kindness  and  the  force  of 
argument.  But  when  the  emperors  became  Chris- 
tians, they,  in  memory  of  the  days  when  they  were 
“ Pontifices  maximi,”  at  once  endeavored  to  regulate 
worship  and  doctrine,  at  least  externally.  Unfor- 
tunately, certain  sects,  hated  like  the  Manicheans,  or 
revolutionary  in  character  like  the  Donatists,  promp- 
ted the  enactment  of  cruel  laws  for  their  suppression. 
St.  Optatus  approved  these  measures,  and  Pope  St. 
Leo  had  not  the  courage  to  disavow  them.  Still, 
most  of  the  early  Fathers,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  St. 
Martin,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustine,  and  many  others,1 

1 Lea  (op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  pp.  214,  215)  says  that  St.  Jerome  was  an 
advocate  of  force.  “ Rigor  in  fact,”  argues  St.  Jerome,  “ is  the 
most  genuine  mercy,  since  temporal  punishment  may  avert 
eternal  perdition.”  Here  St.  Jerome  merely  says  that  God 
punishes  in  time  that  He  may  not  punish  in  eternity.  But  he 

152 


THE  INQUISITION 


153 


protested  strongly  in  the  name  of  Christian  charity 
against  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  heretics. 
St.  Augustine,  who  formed  the  mind  of  his  age,  at 
first  favored  the  theory  of  absolute  toleration.  But 
afterwards,  perceiving  that  certain  good  results  fol- 
lowed from  what  he  called  “ a salutary  fear,”  he 
modified  his  views.  He  then  maintained  that  the 
State  could  and  ought  to  punish  by  fine,  confiscation, 
or  even  exile,  her  rebellious  children,  in  order  to  make 
them  repent.  This  may  be  called  his  theory  of  moder- 
ate persecution. 

The  revival  of  the  Manichean  heresy  in  the  eleventh 
century  took  the  Christian  princes  and  people  by  sur- 
prise, unaccustomed  as  they  were  to  the  legislation  of 
the  first  Christian  emperors.  Still  the  heretics  did  not 
fare  any  better  on  that  account.  For  the  people  rose 
up  against  them,  and  burned  them  at  the  stake.  The 
Bishops  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  at  once  pro- 
tested against  this  lynching  of  heretics.  Some,  like 
Wazo  of  Liege,  represented  the  party  of  absolute 
toleration,  while  others,  under  the  leadership  of  St. 
Bernard,  advocated  the  theory  of  St.  Augustine.  Soon 
after,  churchmen  began  to  decree  the  penalty  of  im- 
prisonment for  heresy — a penalty  unknown  to  the 
Roman  law,  and  regarded  in  the  beginning  more  as  a 
penance  than  a legal  punishment.  It  originated  in  the 
cloister,  gradually  made  its  way  into  the  tribunals  of 
the  Bishop,  and  finally  into  the  tribunals  of  the  State. 

Canon  law,  helped  greatly  by  the  revival  of  the 
imperial  code,  introduced  in  the  twelfth  century  defi- 

by  no  means  “ argues  ” that  this  punishment  should  be  in  the 
hands  of  either  Church  or  State.  Commentary  in  Naum,  i,  9, 
P.  L.,  vol.  xxv,  col.  1238 


154 


THE  INQUISITION 


nite  laws  for  the  suppression  of  heresy.  This  regime 
lasted  from  1150  till  1215,  from  Gratian  to  Innocent 
III.  Heresy,  the  greatest  sin  against  God,  was  classed 
with  treason,  and  visited  with  the  same  penalty.  The 
penalty  was  banishment  with  all  its  consequences; 
i . e.j  the  destruction  of  the  houses  of  heretics,  and  the 
confiscation  of  their  property.  Still,  because  of  the 
horror  which  the  Church  had  always  professed  for  the 
effusion  of  blood,  she  did  not  as  yet  inflict  the  death 
penalty  which  the  State  decreed  for  treason.  Inno- 
cent III  did  not  wish  to  go  beyond  the  limits  set  by 
St.  Augustine,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  St.  Bernard. 

But  later  Popes  and  princes  went  further.  They 
began  by  decreeing  death  as  a secondary  penalty,  in 
case  heretics  rebelled  against  the  law  of  banishment. 
But  when  the  Emperor  Frederic  had  revived  the  legis- 
lation of  his  Christian  predecessors  of  the  fourth,  fifth, 
and  sixth  centuries,1  and  had  made  the  popular  custom 
of  burning  heretics  a law  of  the  empire,  the  Papacy 
could  not  resist  the  current  of  his  example.  The 
Popes  at  once  ordered  the  new  legislation  vigorously 
enforced  everywhere,  especially  in  Lombardy.  This 
was  simply  the  logical  carrying  out  of  the  comparison 
made  by  Innocent  III  between  heresy  and  treason, 
and  was  due  chiefly  to  two  Popes:  Gregory  IX  who 
established  the  Inquisition  under  the  Dominicans  and 
the  Franciscans,  and  Innocent  IV  who  authorized  the 
Inquisitors  to  use  torture. 

The  theologians  and  casuists  soon  began  to  defend 
the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition.  They  seemed  ab- 
solutely unaffected,  in  theory  at  least,  by  the  most 
cruel  torments.  With  them  the  preservation  of  the 

1 Cf.  the  law  of  Arcadius  of  395  (Cod.  Theodos.,  xvi,  v.  28). 


THE  INQUISITION 


155 


orthodox  faith  was  paramount,  and  superior  to  all 
sentiment.  In  the  name  of  Christian  charity,  St. 
Thomas,  the  great  light  of  the  thirteenth  century, 
taught  that  relapsed  heretics,  even  when  repentant, 
ought  to  be  put  to  death  without  mercy. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  development  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  on  the  suppression  of  heresy,  and 
granting  that  a plausible  explanation  may  be  given, 
how  are  we  to  justify  it? 

Intolerance  is  natural  to  man.  If,  as  a matter  of 
fact,  men  are  not  always  intolerant  in  practice,  it  is 
only  because  they  are  prevented  by  conditions  born 
of  reason  and  wisdom.  Respect  for  the  opinion  of 
others  supposes  a temper  of  mind  which  takes  years 
to  acquire.  It  is  a question  whether  the  average  man 
is  capable  of  it.  Intolerance  regarding  religious  doc- 
trines especially,  with  the  cruelty  that  usually  accom- 
panies it,  has  practically  been  the  law  of  history. 
From  this  viewpoint,  the  temper  of  mind  of  the 
mediaeval  Christians  differed  little  from  that  of  the 
pagans  of  the  empire.  A Roman  of  the  second  or 
third  century  considered  blasphemy  against  the  gods 
a crime  that  deserved  the  greatest  torments;  a Chris- 
tian of  the  eleventh  century  felt  the  same  toward  the 
apostates  and  enemies  of  the  Catholic  faith.  This  is 
clearly  seen  from  the  treatment  accorded  the  first 
Manicheans  who  came  from  Bulgaria,  and  gained  some 
adherents  at  Orleans,  Montwimer,  Soissons,  Liege, 
and  Goslar.  At  once  there  was  a popular  uprising 
against  them,  which  evidenced  what  may  be  called  the 
instinctive  intolerance  of  the  people.  The  civil  au- 
thorities of  the  day  shared  this  hatred,  and  proved  it 


156 


THE  INQUISITION 


either  by  sending  heretics  to  the  stake  themselves,  or 
allowing  the  people  to  do  so.  As  Lea  has  said:  “ The 
practice  of  burning  the  heretic  alive  was  thus  not  the 
creation  of  positive  law,  but  arose  generally  and  spon- 
taneously, and  its  adoption  by  the  legislator  was  only 
the  recognition  of  a popular  custom.”  1 Besides,  the 
sovereign  could  not  brook  riotous  men  who  disturbed 
the  established  order  of  his  dominions.  He  was  well 
aware  that  public  tranquillity  depended  chiefly  upon 
religious  principles,  which  ensured  that  moral  unity 
desired  by  every  ruler.  Pagan  antiquity  had  dreamed 
of  this  unity,  and  its  philosophers,  interpreting  its 
mind,  showed  themselves  just  as  intolerant  as  the 
theologians  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

“ Plato,”  writes  Gaston  Boissier,  “ in  his  ideal  Re- 
public, denies  toleration  to  the  impious,  i.  e.,  to  those 
who  did  not  accept  the  State  religion.  Even  if  they 
remained  quiet  and  peaceful,  and  carried  on  no  propa- 
ganda, they  seemed  to  him  dangerous  by  the  bad 
example  they  gave.  He  condemned  them  to  be  shut 
up  in  a house  where  they  might  learn  wisdom  ( sophro - 
nisteria) — by  this  pleasant  euphemism  he  meant  a 
prison — and  for  five  years  they  were  to  listen  to  a 
discourse  every  day.  The  impious  who  caused  dis- 
turbance and  tried  to  corrupt  others  were  to  be  im- 
prisoned for  life  in  a terrible  dungeon,  and  after  death 
were  to  be  denied  burial.”  2 Apart  from  the  stake, 
was  not  this  the  Inquisition  to  the  life?  In  countries 
where  religion  and  patriotism  went  hand  in  hand,  we 
can  readily  conceive  this  intolerance.  Sovereigns  were 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  222. 

2 La  fin  du  paganism, e,  vol.  i,  pp.  47,  48.  Cf.  Plato’s  Republic , 
Book  II;  Laws,  Book  X. 


THE  INQUISITION 


157 


naturally  inclined  to  believe  that  those  who  interfered 
with  the  public  worship  unsettled  the  State,  and  their 
conviction  became  all  the  stronger  when  the  State  re- 
ceived from  heaven  a sort  of  special  investiture.  This 
was  the  case  with  the  Christian  empire.  Constantine, 
towards  the  end  of  his  career,  thought  himself  ordained 
by  God,  “ a bishop  in  externals,”  1 and  his  successors 
strove  to  keep  intact  the  deposit  of  faith.  “ The  first 
care  of  the  imperial  majesty,”  said  one  of  them,  “ is 
to  protect  the  true  religion,  for  with  its  worship  is  con- 
nected the  prosperity  of  human  undertakings.”2  Thus 
some  of  their  laws  were  passed  in  view  of  strengthen- 
ing the  canon  law.  They  mounted  guard  about  the 
Church,  with  sword  in  hand,  ready  to  use  it  in  her 
defence. 

The  Middle  Ages  inherited  these  views.  Religious 
unity  was  then  attained  throughout  Europe.  Any 
attempt  to  break  it  was  an  attack  at  once  upon  the 
Church  and  the  Empire.  “ The  enemies  of  the  Cross 
of  Christ  and  those  who  deny  the  Christian  faith,” 
says  Pedro  II,  of  Aragon,  “ are  also  our  enemies,  and 
the  public  enemies  of  our  kingdom;  they  must  be 
treated  as  such.”3  It  was  in  virtue  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple that  Frederic  II  punished  heretics  as  criminals 
according  to  the  common  law;  ut  crimina  publica. 
He  speaks  of  the  “ Ecclesiastical  peace  ” as  of  old 
the  emperors  spoke  of  the  “ Roman  peace.”  As 
Emperor,  he  considered  it  his  duty  “ to  preserve  and 
to  maintain  it,”  and  woe  betide  the  one  who  dared 
disturb  it.  Feeling  himself  invested  with  both  human 

1 Eusebius,  Vita  Constantini,  lib.  iv,  cap.  xxiv. 

2 Theodosius  II,  Novella,  tit.  iii  (438). 

3 Law  of  1197,  in  De  Marca,  Marca  Hispanica,  col.  1384. 


158 


THE  INQUISITION 


and  divine  authority,  he  enacted  the  severest  laws 
possible  against  heresy.  What  therefore  might  have 
remained  merely  a threatening  theory  became  a terrible 
reality.  The  laws  of  1224,  1231,  1238,  and  1239  prove 
that  both  princes  and  people  considered  the  stake  a 
fitting  penalty  for  heresy. 

It  would  have  been  very  surprising  if  the  Church 
menaced  as  she  was  by  aft.  ever-increasing  flood  of 
heresy,  had  not  accepted  the  State’s  eager  offer  of  pro- 
tection. She  had  always  professed  a horror  for  blood- 
shed. But  as  long  as  she  was  not  acting  directly,  and 
the  State  undertook  to  shed  in  its  own  name  the  blood 
of  wicked  men,  she  began  to  consider  solely  the  benefits 
that  would  accrue  to  her  from  the  enforcement  of  the 
civil  laws.  Besides,  by  classing  heresy  with  treason, 
she  herself  had  laid  down  the  premises  of  the  State’s 
logical  conclusion,  the  death  penalty.  The  Church, 
therefore,  could  hardly  call  in  question  the  justice 
of  the  imperial  laws,  without  in  a measure  going 
against  the  principles  she  herself  had  advocated. 

Church  and  State,  therefore,  continually  influenced 
one  the  other.  The  theory  upheld  by  the  Church  re- 
acted on  the  State  and  caused  it  to  adopt  violent 
measures,  while  the  State  in  turn  compelled  the  Church 
to  approve  its  use  of  force,  although  such  an  attitude 
was  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  early  Christianity. 

The  theologians  and  the  canonists  put  the  finishing 
touches  to  the  situation.  Influenced  by  what  was 
happening  around  them,  their  one  aim  was  to  defend 
the  laws  of  their  day.  This  is  clearly  seen,  if  we  com- 
pare the  Summa  of  St.  Raymond  of  Pennafort  with 
the  Summa  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  When  St.  Ray- 
mond wrote  his  work,  the  Church  still  followed  the 


THE  INQUISITION 


159 


criminal  code  of  Popes  Lucius  III  and  Innocent  III; 
she  had  as  yet  no  notion  of  inflicting  the  death  penalty 
for  heresy.  But  in  St.  Thomas's  time,  the  Inquisition 
had  been  enforcing  for  some  years  the  draconian  laws 
of  Frederic  II.  The  Angelic  Doctor,  therefore,  made 
no  attempt  to  defend  the  obsolete  code  of  Innocent  III, 
but  endeavored  to  show  that  the  imperial  laws,  then 
authorized  by  the  Church,  were  comformable  to  the 
strictest  justice.  His  one  argument  was  to  make  com- 
parisons, more  or  less  happy,  between  heresy  and 
crimes  against  the  common  law. 

At  a period  when  no  one  considered  a doctrine 
solidly  proved  unless  authorities  could  be  quoted  in  its 
support,  these  comparisons  were  not  enough.  So  the 
theologians  taxed  their  ingenuity  to  find  quotations, 
not  from  the  Fathers,  which  would  have  been  difficult, 
but  from  the  Scriptures,  which  seemed  favorable  to 
the  ideas  then  in  vogue.  St.  Optatus  had  tried  to  do 
this  as  early  as  the  fifth  century,1  despite  the  ante- 
cedent protests  of  Origen,  Cyprian,  Lactantius  and 
Hilary.  Following  his  example,  the  churchmen  of  the 
Middle  Ages  reminded  their  hearers  that  according  to 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  “ Jehovah  was  a God  delighting 
in  the  extermination  of  his  enemies."  They  read  how 
Saul,  the  chosen  king  of  Israel,  had  been  divinely 
punished  for  sparing  Agag  of  Amalek;  how  the  prophet 
Samuel  had  hewn  him  to  pieces;  how  the  wholesale 
slaughter  of  the  unbelieving  Canaanites  had  been  ruth- 
lessly commanded  and  enforced;  how  Elijah  had  been 
commended  for  slaying  four  hundred  and  fifty  priests 
of  Baal;  and  they  could  not  conceive  how  mercy  to 
those  who  rejected  the  true  faith  could  be  aught  but 
1 De  Schismate  Donatistarum , p.  iii,  cap.  vii. 


160 


THE  INQUISITION 


disobedience  to  God.  Had  not  Almighty  God  said: 
“ If  thy  brother,  the  son  of  thy  mother,  or  thy  daughter 
or  thy  wife,  that  is  in  thy  bosom,  or  thy  friend,  whom 
thou  lovest  as  thy  own  soul,  would  persuade  thee 
secretly,  saying:  ‘ Let  us  go  and  serve  strange  gods/ 
which  thou  knowest  not,  nor  thy  fathers  . . . consent 
not  to  him,  hear  him  not,  neither  let  thy  eye  spare  him 
to  pity  or  conceal  him,  but  thou  shalt  presently  put 
him  to  death.  Let  thy  hand  be  first  upon  him,  and 
afterwards  the  hands  of  all  the  people.”  1 

Such  a teaching  might  appear,  at  first  sight,  hard  to 
reconcile  with  the  law  of  gentleness  which  Jesus 
preached  to  the  world.  But  the  theologians  quoted 
Christ’s  words:  “ Do  not  think  that  I am  come  to 

destroy  the  law;  I am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to 
fulfill,”  2 and  other  texts  of  the  Gospels  to  prove  the 
perfect  agreement  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Law 
in  the  matter  of  penalties.  They  even  went  so  far 
as  to  assert  that  St.  John3  spoke  of  the  penalty  of 
fire  to  be  inflicted  upon  heretics. 

This  strange  method  of  exegesis  was  not  peculiar  to 
the  founders  and  the  defenders  of  the  tribunals  of  the 
Inquisition.  England,  which  knew  nothing  of  the  In- 
quisition, save  for  the  trial  of  the  Templars,  was  just 
as  cruel  to  heretics  as  Gregory  IX  or  Frederic  II. 

“ The  statute  of  May  25,  1382,  directs  the  king  to 
issue  to  his  sheriffs  commissions  to  arrest  Wyclif’s 
traveling  preachers,  and  aiders  and  abettors  of  heresy, 
and  hold  them  till  they  justify  themselves  selon  reson 
et  la  ley  de  seinte  esglise . After  the  burning  of  Sawtr6 

1 Deut.  xiii.  6-9;  cf.  xvii.  1-6. 

2 Matt.  v.  17. 

8 John  xv.  16. 


THE  INQUISITION 


161 


by  a royal  warrant  confirmed  by  Parliament  in  1400, 
the  statute  ‘ de  hcereticis  comburendis  ’ for  the  first  time 
inflicted  in  England  the  death  penalty  as  a settled 
punishment  for  heresy.  ...  It  forbade  the  dissemi- 
nation of  heretical  opinions  and  books,  empowered  the 
bishops  to  seize  all  offenders  and  hold  them  in  prison 
until  they  should  purge  themselves  or  abjure,  and 
ordered  the  bishops  to  proceed  against  them  within 
three  months  after  arrest.  For  minor  offences,  the 
bishops  were  empowered  to  imprison  during  pleasure 
and  fine  at  discretion, — the  fine  enuring  to  the  royal 
exchequer.  For  obstinate  heresy  or  relapse,  involving 
under  the  canon  law  abandonment  to  the  secular  arm, 
the  bishops  and  their  commissioners  were  the  sole 
judges,  and  on  their  delivery  of  such  convicts,  the 
sheriff  of  the  county,  or  the  mayor  and  bailiffs  of  the 
nearest  town,  were  obliged  to  burn  them  before  the 
people  on  an  eminence.  Henry  V followed  this  up, 
and  the  statute  of  1414  established  throughout  the 
kingdom  a sort  of  mixed  secular  and  ecclesiastical 
Inquisition  for  which  the  English  system  of  grand 
inquests  gave  special  facilities.  Under  this  legislation, 
burning  for  heresy  became  a not  unfamiliar  sight  for 
English  eyes,  and  Lollardy  was  readily  suppressed. 
In  1533,  Henry  VIII  repealed  the  statute  of  1400, 
while  retaining  those  of  1382  and  1414,  and  also  the 
penalty  of  burning  alive  for  contumacious  heresy  and 
relapse,  and  the  dangerous  admixture  of  politics  and 
religion  rendered  the  stake  a favorite  instrument  of 
statecraft.  One  of  the  earliest  measures  of  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI  was  the  repeal  of  this  law,  as  well  as 
those  of  1382  and  1414,  together  with  all  the  atrocious 
legislation  of  the  Six  Articles.  With  the  reaction  under 


162 


THE  INQUISITION 


Philip  and  Mary,  came  a revival  of  the  sharp  laws 
against  heresy.  Scarce  had  the  Spanish  marriage  been 
concluded  when  an  obedient  Parliament  re-enacted  the 
legislation  of  1382,  1400,  and  1414,  which  afforded 
ample  machinery  for  the  numerous  burnings  which  fol- 
lowed. The  earliest  act  of  the  first  Parliament  of 
Elizabeth  was  the  repeal  of  the  legislation  of  Philip  and 
Mary,  and  of  the  old  statutes  which  it  had  revived; 
but  the  writ  de  hceretico  comburendo  had  become  an 
integral  part  of  English  law,  and  survived,  until  the 
desire  of  Charles  II  for  Catholic  toleration  caused  him, 
in  1676,  to  procure  its  abrogation,  and  the  restraint 
of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  in  cases  of  atheism,  blas- 
phemy, heresy,  and  schism,  and  other  damnable  doc- 
trines and  opinions  ‘ to  the  ecclesiastical  remedies  of 
excommunication,  deprivation,  degradation,  and  other 
ecclesiastical  censures,  not  extending  to  death.’ ’ 1 
These  ideas  of  intolerance  were  so  fixed  in  the  public 
mind  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  that  even  those 
who  protested  against  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition 
thought  that  in  principle  it  was  just.  Farel  wrote  to 
Calvin,  September  8,  1533:  “ Some  people  do  not  wish 
us  to  prosecute  heretics.  But  because  the  Pope  con- 
demns the  faithful  (i.  e.,  the  Huguenots)  for  the  crime 
of  heresy,  and  because  unjust  judges  punish  the  inno- 
cent, it  is  absurd  to  conclude  that  we  must  not  put 
heretics  to  death,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  faithful. 

I myself  have  often  said  that  I was  ready  to  suffer 
death,  if  I ever  taught  anything  contrary  to  sound 
doctrine,  and  that  I would  deserve  the  most  frightful 
torments,  if  I tried  to  rob  any  one  of  the  true  faith  in 


Lea,  op.  cit.y  vol.  i,  pp.  352-354. 


THE  INQUISITION 


163 


Christ.  I cannot,  therefore,  lay  down  a different  law 
to  others.”  1 

Calvin  held  the  same  views.  His  inquisitorial  spirit 
was  manifest  in  his  bitter  prosecution  and  condem- 
nation of  the  Spaniard  Michael  Servetus.2  When  any 
one  found  fault  with  him  he  answered:  “ The  execu- 
tioners of  the  Pope  taught  that  their  foolish  inventions 
were  doctrines  of  Christ,  and  were  excessively  cruel, 
while  I have  always  judged  heretics  in  all  kindness  and 
in  the  fear  of  God;  I merely  put  to  death  a confessed 
heretic.”  3 Michael  Servetus  assuredly  did  not  gain 
much  by  the  substitution  of  Calvin  for  the  Inqui- 
sition. 

Bullinger  of  Zurich,  speaking  of  the  death  of  Ser- 
vetus, thus  wrote  Lelius  Socinus:  “ If,  Lelius,  you  can- 
not now  admit  the  right  of  a magistrate  to  punish 
heretics,  you  will  undoubtedly  admit  it  some  day.  St. 
Augustine  himself  at  first  deemed  it  wicked  to  use 
violence  towards  heretics,  and  tried  to  win  them  back 
by  the  mere  word  of  God.  But  finally,  learning  wis- 
dom by  experience,  he  began  to  use  force  with  good 
effect.  In  the  beginning  the  Lutherans  did  not  believe 
that  heretics  ought  to  be  punished;  but  after  the 

1 (Euvres  completes  de  Calvin , Brunswick,  1863-1900,  vol.  xiv, 

p.  612. 

2 Servetus  was  condemned  October  26,  1553,  to  be  burned 
alive,  and  was  executed  the  next  day.  As  early  as  1545,  Calvin 
had  written:  “If  he  (Servetus)  comes  to  Geneva,  I will  never 
allow  him  to  depart  alive,  as  long  as  I have  authority  in  this 
city:  Vivum  exire  numquam  patiar.  (Euvres  completes , vol.  xii, 
p.  283.”  Calvin,  however,  wished  the  death  penalty  of  fire  to 
be  commuted  into  some  other  kind  of  death. 

3 To  justify  this  execution,  Calvin  published  his  Defensio 
orthodoxce  fidei  de  sacra  Trinitate , contra  prodigiosos  errores 
Michcelis  Serveti  Hispani , ubi  ostenditur  hoereticos  jure  gladii 
coercendos  esse , Geneva,  1554. 


164 


THE  INQUISITION 


excesses  of  the  Anabaptists,  they  declared  that  the 
magistrate  ought  not  merely  to  reprimand  the  unruly, 
but  to  punish  them  severely  as  an  example  to  thou- 
sands.’7 

Theodore  of  Beza,  who  had  seen  several  of  his  co- 
religionists burned  in  France  for  their  faith,  likewise 
wrote  in  1554,  in  Calvinistic  Geneva:  “ What  crime 

can  be  greater  or  more  heinous  than  heresy,  which  sets 
at  nought  the  word  of  God  and  all  ecclesiastic  dis- 
cipline? Christian  magistrates,  do  your  duty  to  God, 
Who  has  put  the  sword  into  your  hands  for  the  honor 
of  His  majesty;  strike  valiantly  these  monsters  in  the 
guise  of  men.77  Theodore  of  Beza  considered  the  error 
of  those  who  demanded  freedom  of  conscience  “ worse 
than  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope.  It  is  better  to  have  a 
tyrant,  no  matter  how  cruel  he  may  be,  than  to  let 
everyone  do  as  he  pleases.77  He  maintained  that  the 
sword  of  the  civil  authority  should  punish  not  only 
heretics,  but  also  those  who  wished  heresy  to  go  un- 
punished.1 In  brief,  before  the  Renaissance  there  were 
very  few  who  taught  with  Huss  2 that  a heretic  ought 
not  to  be  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  to  be  put  to 
death.  3 

1 De  hcereticis  a civili  magistratu  puniendis,  Geneva,  1554; 
translated  into  French  by  Colladon  in  1559. 

2 In  his  treatise  De  Ecclesia.  This  was  the  eighteenth  article 
of  the  heresies  attributed  to  him. 

3 In  general,  the  Protestant  leaders  of  the  day  were  glad  of 
the  execution  of  Servetus.  Melancthon  wTote  to  Bullinger: 
“ I am  astonished  that  some  persons  denounce  the  severity  that 
was  so  justly  used  in  that  case.”  Among  those  who  did  denounce 
it  was  Nicolas  Zurkinden  of  Berne.  Cf.  his  letter  in  the  (Eumres 
completes  de  Calvin , vol.  xv,  p.  19.  Sebastien  Castellio  published 
in  March,  1554,  his  Traitk  des  her&iques , a savoir  s’il  faut  les 
persecuter}  the  oldest  and  one  of  the  most  eloquent  pamphlets 


THE  INQUISITION 


165 


Such  severity,  nay,  such  cruelty,  shown  to  what  we 
would  call  “ a crime  of  opinion,”  is  hard  for  men  of  our 
day  to  understand.  “ To  comprehend  it,”  says  Lea, 
“ we  must  picture  to  ourselves  a stage  of  civilization 
in  many  respects  wholly  unlike  our  own.  Passions 
were  fiercer,  convictions  stronger,  virtues  and  vices 
more  exaggerated,  than  in  our  colder  and  self-contained 
time.  The  age,  moreover,  was  a cruel  one.  . . . We 
have  only  to  look  upon  the  atrocities  of  the  criminal 
law  of  the  Middle  Ages  to  see  how  pitiless  men  were 
in  their  dealings  with  one  another.  The  wheel,  the 
caldron  of  burning  oil,  burning  alive,  tearing  apart 
with  wild  horses,  were  the  ordinary  expedients  by 
which  the  criminal  jurist  sought  to  deter  men  from 
crime  by  frightful  examples  which  would  make  a pro- 
found impression  on  a not  over-sensitive  popula- 
tion.” 1 

When  we  consider  this  rigorous  civil  criminal  code, 
we  need  not  wonder  that  heretics,  who  were  consid- 
ered the  worst  possible  criminals,  were  sent  to  the 
stake. 

This  explains  why  intelligent  men,  animated  by  the 
purest  zeal  for  good,  proved  so  hard  and  unbending, 
and  used  without  mercy  the  most  cruel  tortures,  when 
they  thought  that  the  faith  or  the  salvation  of  souls 
was  at  stake.  “ With  such  men,”  says  Lea, — and  he 
mentions  among  others  Innocent  III  and  St.  Louis, — 
“ it  was  not  hope  of  gain,  or  lust  of  blood  or  pride  of 

against  intolerance.  Cf.  F.  Buisson,  op.  cit.y  ch.  xi.  This  is 
the  pamphlet  that  Theodore  of  Beza  tried  to  refute.  Castellio 
then  attacked  Calvin  directly  in  a new  work,  Contra  libellum 
Calvini  in  quo  ostendere  conatur  hcereticos  jure  gladii  ccercendos 
esse}  which  was  not  published  until  1612,  in  Holland. 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.y  vol.  i,  pp.  234,  235. 


166 


THE  INQUISITION 

opinion,  or  wanton  exercise  of  power,  but  sense  of 
duty,  and  they  but  represented  what  was  universal 
public  opinion  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  seventeenth 
centuries.” 

It  was,  therefore,  the  spirit  of  the  times,  the  Zeitgeist , 
as  we  would  call  it  to-day,  that  was  responsible  for 
the  rigorous  measures  formerly  used  by  both  Church 
and  State  in  the  suppression  of  heresy.  The  other 
reasons  we  have  mentioned  are  only  subsidiary.  This 
is  the  one  reason  that  satisfactorily  explains  both  the 
theories  and  the  facts. 

But  an  explanation  is  something  far  different  from  a 
defence  of  an  institution.  To  explain  is  to  show  the 
relation  of  cause  to  effect;  to  defend  is  to  show  that 
the  effect  corresponds  to  an  ideal  of  justice.  Even 
if  we  grant  that  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition  did 
correspond  to  a certain  ideal  of  justice,  that  ideal  is 
certainly  not  ours  to-day.  Let  us  go  into  this  question 
more  thoroughly. 

It  is  obvious  that  we  must  strongly  denounce  all  the 
abuses  of  the  Inquisition  that  were  due  to  the  sins  of 
individuals,  no  matter  what  their  source.  No  one,  for 
instance,  would  dream  of  defending  Cauchon,  the 
iniquitous  judge  of  Joan  of  Arc,  or  other  cruel  Inquisi- 
tors who,  like  him,  used  their  authority  to  punish 
unjustly  suspects  brought  before  their  tribunal.  From 
this  standpoint,  it  is  probable  that  many  of  the  sen- 
tences of  the  Inquisition  need  revision. 

But  can  we  rightly  consider  this  institution  “ a 
sublime  spectacle  of  social  perfection,”  and  “ a model 
of  justice  ? ” 2 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.f  vol.  i,  p.  234. 

2 The  Civiltd  Cattolica , 1853,  vol.  i,  p.  595  seq. 


THE  INQUISITION 


167 


To  call  the  Inquisition  a model  of  justice  is  a mani- 
fest exaggeration,  as  every  fair  student  of  its  history 
must  admit. 

The  Inquisitorial  procedure  was,  in  itself,  inferior  to 
the  accusatio , in  which  the  accuser  assumed  the  burden 
of  publicly  proving  his  charges.  That  it  was  difficult 
to  observe  this  method  of  procedure  in  heresy  trials 
can  readily  be  understood;  for  the  pcena  talionis  await- 
ing the  accuser  who  failed  to  substantiate  his  charges 
was  calculated  to  cool  the  ardor  of  many  Catholics, 
who  otherwise  would  have  been  eager  to  prosecute 
heretics.  But  we  must  grant  that  the  accusatio  in 
criminal  law  allowed  a greater  chance  for  justice  to  be 
done  than  the  inquisitio.  Besides,  if  the  ecclesiastical 
inquisitio  had  proceeded  like  the  civil  inquisitio , the 
possibility  of  judicial  errors  might  have  been  far  less. 
“ In  the  inquisitio  of  the  civil  law,  the  secrecy  for 
for  which  the  Inquisition  has  been  justly  criticized, 
did  not  exist;  the  suspect  was  cited,  and  a copy  of  the 
capitula  or  articuli  containing  the  charges  was  given 
to  him.  When  questioned,  he  could  either  confess  or 
deny  these  charges.  The  names  of  the  witnesses  who 
were  to  appear  against  him,  and  a copy  of  their  testi- 
mony, were  also  supplied,  so  that  he  could  carry  on 
his  defence  either  by  objecting  to  the  character  of  his 
accusers,  or  the  tenor  of  their  charges.  Women, 
minors  aged  fourteen,  serfs,  enemies  of  the  prisoner, 
criminals,  excommunicates,  heretics,  and  those  branded 
with  infamy  were  not  allowed  to  testify.  All  testi- 
mony was  received  in  writing.  The  prisoner  and  his 
lawyers  then  appeared  before  the  judge  to  rebut  the 
evidence  and  the  charges.” 1 

1 Tanon,  op.  cit pp.  287,  288. 


168 


THE  INQUISITION 


In  the  ecclesiastical  procedure,  on  the  contrary,  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  were  withheld,  save  in  very 
exceptional  cases;  any  one  could  testify,  even  if  he 
were  a heretic;  the  prisoner  had  the  right  to  reject  all 
whom  he  considerd  his  mortal  enemies,  but  even  then 
he  had  to  guess  at  their  names  in  order  to  invalidate 
their  testimony;  he  was  not  allowed  a lawyer,  but  had 
to  defend  himself  in  secret.  Only  the  most  prejudiced 
minds  can  consider  such  a procedure  the  ideal  of 
justice.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  unjust  in  every  detail 
wherein  it  differs  from  the  inquisitio  of  the  civil  law. 

Certain  reasons  may  be  adduced  to  explain  the 
attitude  of  the  Popes,  who  wished  to  make  the 
procedure  of  the  Inquisition  as  secret  and  as  com- 
prehensive as  possible.  They  were  well  aware  of  the 
danger  that  witnesses  would  incur,  if  their  names  were 
indiscreetly  revealed.  They  knew  that  the  publicity 
of  the  pleadings  would  certainly  hinder  the  efficiency 
of  heresy  trials.  But  such  considerations  do  not  change 
the  character  of  the  institution  itself;  the  Inquisition 
in  leaving  too  great  a margin  to  the  arbitrary  conduct 
of  individual  judges,  at  once  fell  below  the  standard 
of  strict  justice. 

All  that  can  and  ought  to  be  said  in  the  defence  and 
to  the  honor  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  is  that  they  en- 
deavored to  remedy  the  abuses  of  the  Inquisition. 
With  this  in  view,  Innocent  IV  and  Alexander  IV 
obliged  the  Inquisitors  to  consult  a number  of  boni 
viri  and  periti;  Clement  V forbade  them  to  render 
any  grave  decision  without  first  consulting  the  bishops, 
the  natural  judges  of  the  faith; 1 and  Boniface  VIII 

1 Clementinae,  De  HcereticiSj  Decretal  Multorum  Querela , cap 
i,  sect.  i. 


THE  INQUISITION 


169 


recommended  them  to  reveal  the  names  of  the  wit- 
nesses to  the  prisoners,  if  they  thought  that  this  revela- 
tion would  not  be  prejudicial  to  any  one.1  In  a word, 
they  wished  the  laws  of  justice  to  be  scrupulously 
observed,  and  at  times  mitigated.2  But,  examined 
in  detail,  these  laws  were  far  from  being  perfect. 


Antecedent  imprisonment  and  torture,  which  played  so 
important  a part  in  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition, 
were  undoubtedly  very  barbarous  methods  of  judicial 
prosecution.  Antecedent  imprisonment  may  be  justi- 
fied in  certain  cases;  but  the  manner  in  which  the 
Inquisitors  conceived  it  was  far  from  just.  No  one 
would  dare  defend  to-day  the  punishment  known  as 
the  career  durus}  whereby  the  Inquisitors  tried  to  extort 
confessions  from  their  prisoners.  They  rendered  it, 
moreover,  all  the  more  odious  by  arbitrarily  prolonging 
its  horrors  and  its  cruelty. 

It  is  harder  still  to  reconcile  the  use  of  torture  with 
any  idea  of  justice.  If  the  Inquisitors  had  stopped  at 
flogging,  which  according  to  St.  Augustine  was  admin- 
istered at  home,  in  school,  and  even  in  the  episcopal 
tribunals  of  the  early  ages,  and  is  mentioned  by  the 
Council  of  Agde,  in  506,  and  the  Benedictine  rule,  no 
one  would  have  been  greatly  scandalized.  We  might 
perhaps  have  considered  this  domestic  and  paternal 
custom  a little  severe,  but  perfectly  consistent  with  the 

1 Sexto,  De  Hcereticis , cap.  xx;  cf.  Tanon,  op.  cit.y  p.  391. 

2 Dollinger  is  very  unjust  when  he  says:  “ From  1200  to  1500 
there  is  a long  uninterrupted  series  of  papal  decrees  on  the 
Inquisition;  these  decrees  increase  continually  in  severity  and 
cruel ty.”  La  Papautt,  p.  102.  Tanon  (op.  tit.,  p.  138)  writes 
more  impartially:  “ Clement  V,  instead  of  increasing  the  powers 
of  the  Holy  Office,  tried  rather  to  suppress  its  abuses.’ 7 


170 


THE  INQUISITION 


ideas  men  then  had  of  goodness.  But  the  rack,  the 
strappado,  and  the  stake  were  peculiarly  inhuman 
inventions.1  When  the  pagans  used  them  against  the 
Christians  of  the  first  centuries,  all  agreed  in  stigma- 
tizing them  as  the  extreme  of  barbarism,  or  as  inven- 
tions of  the  devil.  Their  character  did  not  change  when 
the  Inquisition  began  to  use  them  against  heretics.  To 
our  shame  we  are  forced  to  admit  that,  notwithstand- 
ing Innocent  IV’s  appeal  for  moderation,2  the  brutality 
of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  was  often  on  a par  with 
the  tribunals  of  the  pagan  persecutors.  Pope  Nicholas  I 
thus  denounced  the  use  of  torture  as  a means  of 
judical  inquiry:  “ Such  proceedings,”  he  says,  “ are 
contrary  to  the  law  of  God  and  of  man,  for  a con- 
fession ought  to  be  spontaneous,  not  forced;  it  ought 
to  be  free,  and  not  the  result  of  violence.  A prisoner 
may  endure  all  the  torments  you  inflict  upon  him  with- 
out confessing  anything.  Is  not  that  a disgrace  to  the 
judge,  and  an  evident  proof  of  his  inhumanity!  If, 
on  the  contrary,  a prisoner,  under  stress  of  torture, 
acknowledges  himself  guilty  of  a crime  he  never  com- 
mitted, is  not  the  one  who  forced  him  to  lie,  guilty  of 
a heinous  crime?  ” 3 


The  penalties  which  the  tribunals  of  the  Inquisition 
inflicted  upon  heretics  are  harder  to  judge.  Let  us 
observe,  first  of  all,  that  the  majority  of  the  heretics 
abandoned  to  the  secular  arm  merited  the  most  severe 

1 This  was  the  view  of  St.  Augustine,  Ep.  cxxxiii,  2. 

2 Bull  Ad  Extir panda,  in  Eymeric,  Directorium  inquisitor um, 
Appendix,  p.  8. 

3 Responsa  ad  consulta  Bvlgarorum , cap.  lxxxvi;  Labbe,  Con- 
cilia, vol.  viii,  col.  544. 


THE  INQUISITION 


171 


punishment  for  their  crimes.  It  would  surely  have 
been  unjust  for  criminals  against  the  common  law  to 
escape  punishment  under  cover  of  their  religious  belief. 
Crimes  committed  in  the  name  of  religion  are  always 
crimes,  and  the  man  who  has  his  property  stolen  or  is 
assaulted  cares  little  whether  he  has  to  deal  with  a 
religious  fanatic  or  an  ordinary  criminal.  In  such 
instances,  the  State  is  not  defending  a particular  dog- 
matic teaching,  but  her  own  most  vital  interests. 
Heretics,  therefore,  who  were  criminals  against  the 
civil  law  were  justly  punished.  An  anti-social  sect 
like  the  Cathari,  which  shrouded  itself  in  mystery  and 
perverted  the  people  so  generally,  by  the  very  fact  of 
its  existence  and  propaganda  called  for  the  vengeance 
of  society  and  the  sword  of  the  State. 

“ However  much,”  says  Lea,  “ we  may  deprecate 
the  means  used  for  its  suppression,  and  commiserate 
those  who  suffered  for  conscience’  sake,  we  cannot  but 
admit  that  the  cause  of  orthodoxy  was  in  this  case  the 
cause  of  progress  and  civilization.  Had  Catharism 
become  dominant,  or  even  had  it  been  allowed  to  exist 
on  equal  terms,  its  influence  could  not  have  failed  to 
prove  disastrous.  Its  asceticism  with  regard  to  com- 
merce between  the  sexes,  if  strictly  enforced,  could  only 
have  led  to  the  extinction  of  the  race.  ...  Its  con- 
demnation of  the  visible  universe,  and  of  matter  in 
general  as  the  work  of  Satan  rendered  sinful  all  striving 
after  material  improvement,  and  the  conscientious 
belief  in  such  a creed  could  only  lead  man  back,  in 
time,  to  his  original  condition  of  savagism.  It  was 
not  only  a revolt  against  the  Church,  but  a renuncia- 
tion of  man’s  domination  over  nature.”  1 Its  growth 
1 Lea,  op.  cit.y  vol.  i,  p.  106. 


172 


THE  INQUISITION 


had  to  be  arrested  at  any  price.  Society,  in  prosecut- 
ing it  without  mercy,  was  only  defending  herself 
against  the  working  of  an  essentially  destructive  force. 
It  was  a struggle  for  existence. 

We  must,  therefore,  deduct  from  the  number  of  those 
who  are  commonly  styled  the  victims  of  ecclesiastical 
intolerance,  the  majority  of  the  heretics  executed  by 
the  State;  for  nearly  all  that  were  imprisoned  or  sent 
to  the  stake,  especially  in  northern  Italy  and  southern 
France,  were  Cathari.1 

This  important  observation  has  so  impressed  certain, 
historians,  that  they  have  been  led  to  think  the  In- 
quisition dealt  only  with  criminals  of  this  sort.  “ His- 
tory/^ 9 says  Rodrigo,  “ has  preserved  the  record  of  the 
outrages  committed  by  the  heretics  of  Bulgaria,  the 
Gnostics,  and  the  Manicheans;  the  death  sentence  was 
inflicted  only  upon  criminals  who  confessed  their  mur- 
ders, robberies,  and  acts  of  violence.  The  Albigenses 
were  treated  with  kindness.  The  Catholic  Church 
deplores  all  acts  of  vengeance,  however  strong  the 
provocation  given  by  these  factious  mobs.”  2 * 

Such  a defence  of  the  Inquisition  is  not  borne  out  by 
the  facts.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  in  the  Middle  Ages 
there  was  hardly  a heresy  wThich  had  not  some  con- 
nection with  an  anti-social  sect.  For  this  reason  any 
one  who  denied  a dogma  of  the  faith  was  at  once  sus- 
pected, rightly  or  wrongly,  of  being  an  anarchist.  But, 

1 Jean  Guiraud  has  proved  that  the  Waldenses,  Fraticelli, 
Hussites,  Lollards,  etc.,  attacked  society,  which  acted  in 
self-defence  when  she  put  them  to  death.  La  repression  de 
Fheresie  au  moyen  dge,  in  the  Questions  d'bistoire  et  d' archeologie 
Chretiennet  p.  24  and  seq. 

2 Historia  verdadera  de  la  Inquisicion}  Madrid,  1876,  vol.  i, 

pp.  176,  177. 


THE  INQUISITION 


173 


as  a matter  of  fact,  the  Inquisition  did  not  condemn 
merely  those  heresies  which  caused  social  upheaval, 
but  all  heresies  are  such:  “We  decree,”  says  Frederic 
II,  “ that  the  crime  of  heresy,  no  matter  what  the  name 
of  the  sect,  be  classed  as  a public  crime.  . . and  that 
every  one  who  denies  the  Catholic  faith,  even  in  one 
article,  shall  be  liable  to  the  law : si  inventi  fuerint  a 
fide  catholica  saltern  in  articulo  deviare .”  1 This  was 
also  the  view  of  the  theologians  and  the  canonists. 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  for  instance,  who  speaks  for  the 
whole  schola , did  not  make  any  distinction  between  the 
Catharan  heresy  and  any  other  purely  speculative 
heresy;  he  put  them  all  on  one  level;  every  obdurate 
or  relapsed  heretic  deserved  death.1 2  The  Inquisitors 
were  so  fully  persuaded  of  this  truth  that  they  prose- 
cuted heretics  whose  heresy  was  not  discovered  until 
ten  or  twenty  years  after  their  death,  when  surely^they 
were  no  longer  able  to  cause  any  injury  to  society.3 

We  need  not  wonder  at  these  views  and  practices, 
for  they  were  fully  in  accord  with  the  notion  of  justice 
current  at  the  time.  The  rulers  in  Church  and  State 
felt  it  their  duty  not  only  to  defend  the  social  order, 
but  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  God  in  the  world. 
They  deemed  themselves  in  all  sincerity  the  repre- 
sentatives of  divine  authority  here  below.  God’s 
interests  were  their  interests;  it  was  their  duty,  there- 
fore, to  punish  all  crimes  against  His  law.  Heresy, 
therefore,  a purely  theological  crime,  became  amenable 
to  their  tribunal.  In  punishing  it,  they  believed  that 
they  were  merely  fulfilling  one  of  the  duties  of  their 

1 Constitution  Inconsutilem  tunicam. 

2 Summa  Ha,  Ilae,  q.  x,  art.  8;  q.  xi,  art.  3 and  4. 

3Cf.  Tanon,  op . cit .,  pp.  407-412. 


174 


THE  INQUISITION 


office.  We  have  now  to  examine  and  judge  the 
penalties  inflicted  upon  heresy  as  such. 

The  first  in  order  of  importance  was  the  death 
penalty  of  the  stake,  inflicted  upon  all  obdurate  and 
relapsed  heretics. 

Relapsed  heretics,  when  repentant,  did  not  at  first 
incur  the  death  penalty.  Imprisonment  was  considered 
an  adequate  punishment,  for  it  gave  them  a chance  to 
expiate  their  fault.  The  death  penalty  inflicted  later 
on  placed  the  judges  in  a false  position.  On  the  one 
hand,  by  granting  absolution  and  giving  communion 
to  the  prisoner,  they  professed  to  believe  in  the  sin- 
cerity of  his  repentance  and  conversion,  and  yet  by 
sending  him  to  the  stake  for  fear  of  a relapse,  they 
acted  contrary  to  their  convictions.  To  condemn  a 
man  to  death  who  was  considered  worthy  of  receiving 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  on  the  plea  that  he  might  one 
day  commit  the  sin  of  heresy  again,  appears  to  us  a 
crying  injustice. 

But  should  even  unrepentant  heretics  be  put  to 
death?  No,  taught  St.  Augustine,  and  most  of  the 
early  Fathers,  who  invoked  in  favor  of  the  guilty  ones 
the  higher  law  of  “^charity  and  Christian  gentleness.” 
Their  doctrine  certainly  accorded  perfectly  with  our 
Saviour’s  teaching,  in  the  parable  of  the  cockle  and  the 
good  grain.  As  Wazo,  Bishop  of  Liege  said:  “ May  not 
those  who  are  to-day  cockle  become  wheat  to-morrow?”1 
But  in  decreeing  the  death  of  these  sinners,  the  In- 
quisitors at  once  did  away  with  the  possibility  of  their 
conversion.  Certainly  this  was  not  in  accordance 
with  Christian  charity.  Such  severity  can  only  be 
defended  by  the  authority  of  the  Old  Law,  whose 

1 Vita  Vasonis , cap.  xxv,  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  cxlii,  col.  753. 


THE  INQUISITION 


175 


severity,  according  to  the  early  Fathers,  had  been 
abolished  by  the  law  of  Christ.1 

Advocates  of  the  death  penalty,  like  Frederic  II 
and  St.  Thomas,  tried  to  defend  their  view  by  argu- 
ments from  reason.  Criminals  guilty  of  treason,  and 
counterfeiters  are  condemned  to  death.  Therefore, 
heretics  who  are  traitors  and  falsifiers  merit  the  same 
penalty.  But  a comparison  of  this  kind  is  not  neces- 
sarily a valid  argument.  The  criminals  in  question 
were  a grave  menace  to  the  social  order.  But  we  can- 
not say  as  much  for  each  and  every  heresy  in  itself. 
It  was  unjust  to  place  a crime  against  society  and  a 
sin  against  God  on  an  equal  footing.  Such  reasoning 
would  prove  that  all  sins  were  crimes  of  treason  against 
God,  and  therefore  merited  death.2  Is  not  a sacri- 
legious communion  the  worst  possible  insult  to  the 
divine  majesty?  Must  we  argue,  therefore,  that  every 
unworthy  communicant,  if  unrepentant,  must  be  sent 
to  the  stake? 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  neither  reason,  Christian 
tradition  nor  the  New  Testament  call  for  the  infliction 

1 St.  Optatus  ( De  Schismate  Donatistarum,  lib.  iii,  cap.  vi  and 
vii)  was  one  of  the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  quote  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  his  authority  for  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon 
heretics.  But  in  this  he  was  not  followed  either  by  his  con- 
temporaries or  his  immediate  successors.  Before  him,  Origen 
and  St.  Cyprian  had  protested  against  this  appeal  to  the  Mosaic 
law. 

2 Mgr.  Bonomelli,  Bishop  of  Cremona,  writes:  “In  the  Middle 
Ages,  they  reasoned  thus : If  rebellion  against  the  prince  deserves 
death,  a fortiori  does  rebellion  against  God.  Singular  logic! 
It  is  not  very  hard  to  put  one’s  finger  upon  the  utter  absurdity 
of  such  reasoning.  For  every  sinner  is  a rebel  against  God’s 
law.  It  follows  then  that  we  ought  to  condemn  all  men  to  death, 
beginning  with  the  kings  and  the  legislators;  ” quoted  by  Morlais 
in  the  Revue  du  Clerge  Frangais,  August  1,  1905,  p.  457. 


176 


THE  INQUISITION 


of  the  death  penalty  upon  heretics.  The  interpretation 
of  St.  John  xv.  6:  Si  quis  in  me  non  manserit,  in  ignem 
mittent  et  ardet,  made  by  the  mediaeval  canonists,  is 
not  worth  discussing.  It  was  an  abuse  of  the  accommo- 
dated sense  which  bordered  on  the  ridiculous,  although 
its  consequences  were  terrible. 

Modern  apologists  have  clearly  recognized  this.  For 
that  reason  they  have  tried  their  best  to  show  that  the 
execution  of  heretics  was  solely  the  work  of  the  civil 
power,  and  that  the  Church  was  in  no  way  responsible. 

“ When  we  argue  about  the  Inquisition,”  says  Joseph 
de  Maistre,  “ let  us  separate  and  distinguish  very 
carefully  the  role  of  the  Church  and  the  role  of  the 
State.  All  that  is  terrible  and  cruel  about  this  tri- 
bunal, especially  its  death  penalty,  is  due  to  the  State; 
that  was  its  business,  and  it  alone  must  be  held  to  an 
accounting.  All  the  clemency,  on  the  contrary,  which 
plays  so  large  a part  in  the  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition 
must  be  ascribed  to  the  Church,  which  interfered  in 
its  punishments  only  to  suppress  and  mitigate  them.”  1 
“ The  Church,”  says  another  grave  historian,  “ took 
no  part  in  the  corporal  punishment  of  heretics.  Those 
executed  were  simply  punished  for  their  crimes,  and 
were  condemned  by  judges  acting  under  the  royal 
seal.”  2 “ This,”  says  Lea,  “ is  a typical  instance  in 

which  history  is  written  to  order.  ...  It  is  altogether 
a modern  perversion  of  history  to  assume,  as  apologists 
do,  that  the  request  for  mercy  was  sincere,  and  that 

1 Lettres  & un  gentilhomme  russe  sur  V Inquisition  espagnolef 
ed.  1864,  pp.  17,  18,  28,  34. 

2 Rodrigo,  Historia  verdadera  de  la  Inquisicion^  1876,  vol.  i, 
p.  176. 


THE  INQUISITION 


177 


the  secular  magistrate  and  not  the  Inquisition  was 
responsible  for  the  death  of  the  heretic.  We  can 
imagine  the  smile  of  amused  surprise  with  which 
Gregory  IX  and  Gregory  XI  would  have  listened  to  the 
dialectics  with  which  Count  Joseph  de  Maistre  proves 
that  it  is  an  error  to  suppose,  and  much  more  to  assert, 
that  a Catholic  priest  can  in  any  manner  be  instru- 
mental in  compassing  the  death  of  a fellow  creature.”  1 

The  real  share  of  the  Inquisition  in  a condemnation 
involving  the  death  penalty  is  indeed  a very  difficult 
question  to  determine.  According  to  the  letter  of  the 
papal  and  imperial  Constitutions  of  1231  and  1232, 
the  civil  and  not  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals  assumed 
all  responsibility  for  the  death  sentence;2  the  Inquisi- 
tion merely  decided  upon  the  question  of  doctrine, 
leaving  the  rest  to  the  secular  Court.  It  is  this  legis- 
lation that  the  above-named  apologists  have  in  mind, 
and  the  text  of  these  laws  is  on  their  side. 

But  when  we  consider  how  these  laws  were  carried 
out  in  practice,  we  must  admit  that  the  Church  did 
have  some  share  in  the  death  sentence.  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  Church  excommunicated  those 
princes  who  refused  to  burn  the  heretics  which  the 
Inquisition  handed  over  to  them.  The  princes  were 
not  really  judges  in  this  case;  the  right  to  consider 
questions  of  heresy  was  formally  denied  them.3  It 
was  their  duty  simply  to  register  the  decree  of  the 
Church,  and  to  enforce  it  according  to  the  civil  law. 
In  every  execution,  therefore,  a twofold  authority 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.j  vol.  i,  pp.  540,  227. 

2 Decretals,  cap.  xv,  De  Hcereticis,  lib.  v,  tit.  vii.  Mon.  Germ., 
Leges , sect,  iv,  vol.  ii,  p.  196. 

3 Cf.  Sexto,  v,  ii,  cap.  xi,  and  xviii.  De  Hcereticis , in  Eymeric, 
Directorum , p.  110. 


178 


THE  INQUISITION 


came  into  play:  the  civil  power  which  carried  out  its 
own  laws,  and  the  spiritual  power  which  forced  the 
State  to  carry  them  out.  That  is  why  Peter  Cantor 
declared  that  the  Cathari  ought  not  to  be  put  to  death 
after  an  ecclesiastical  trial,  lest  the  Church  be  compro- 
mised: “ Illud  ab  eo  fit , cujus  auctoritate  fit,”  he  said, 
to  justify  his  recommendation.1 

It  is  therefore  erroneous  to  pretend  that  the  Church 
had  absolutely  no  part  in  the  condemnation  of  heretics 
to  death.  It  is  true  that  this  participation  of  hers 
was  not  direct  and  immediate;  but,  even  though  in- 
direct, it  was  none  the  less  real  and  efficacious.2 

The  judges  of  the  Inquisition  realized  this,  and  did 
their  best  to  free  themselves  of  this  responsibility  which 
weighed  rather  heavily  upon  them.  Some  maintained 
that  in  compelling  the  civil  authority  to  enforce  the 
existing  laws,  they  were  not  going  outside  their  spirit- 
ual office,  but  were  merely  deciding  a case  of  conscience. 
But  this  theory  was  unsatisfactory.  To  reassure  their 
consciences,  they  tried  another  expedient.  In  aban- 
doning heretics  to  the  secular  arm,  they  besought  the 
state  officials  to  act  with  moderation,  and  avoid  “ all 
bloodshed  and  all  danger  of  death.”  This  was  un- 
fortunately an  empty  formula  which  deceived  no  one. 
It  was  intended  to  safeguard  the  principle  which  the 
Church  had  taken  for  her  motto:  Ecclesia  abhorret  a 

1 Verbum  abbreviatum , cap.  Lxxviii,  P.  L.,  vol.  ccv,  col.  231. 

2 In  Spain,  the  manner  in  which  the  Inquisition  abandoned 
heretics  to  the  secular  arm  denoted  a real  participation  of  the 
State  in  the  execution  of  heretics.  The  evening  before  the 
execution  the  Inquisitors  brought  the  King  a small  fagot  tied 
with  ribbons.  The  King  at  once  requested  “ that  this  fagot 
be  the  first  thrown  upon  the  fire  in  his  name.”  Cf.  Baudrillart, 
A propos  de  V Inquisition,  in  the  Revue  Pratique  d Apologetique, 
July  15,  1906,  p.  354,  note. 


THE  INQUISITION 


179 


sanguine.  In  strongly  asserting  this  traditional  law, 
the  Inquisitors  imagined  that  they  thereby  freed  them- 
selves from  all  responsibility,  and  kept  from  imbruing 
their  hands  in  bloodshed.  We  must  take  this  for  what 
it  is  worth.  It  has  been  styled  “ cunning  ” and 
“ hypocrisy;  ” 1 let  us  call  it  simply  a legal  fiction. 

The  penalty  of  life  imprisonment  and  the  penalty  of 
confiscation  inflicted  upon  so  many  heretics,  was  like 
the  death  penalty  imposed  only  by  the  secular  arm. 
We  must  add  to  this  banishment,  which  was  inscribed 
in  the  imperial  legislation,  and  reappeared  in  the  crimi- 
nal codes  of  Lucius  III  and  Innocent  III.  These 
several  penalties  were  by  their  nature  vindicative. 
For  this  reason  they  were  particularly  odious,  and  have 
been  the  occasion  of  bitter  accusations  against  the 
Church. 

With  the  exception  of  imprisonment,  which  we  will 
speak  of  later  on,  these  penalties  originated  with  the 
State.  It  is  important,  therefore,  to  know  what  crimes 
they  punished.  As  a general  rule,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  they  were  only  inflicted  upon  those  heretics  who 
seriously  disturbed  the  social  order.  If  the  death  pen- 
alty could  be  justly  meted  out  to  such  rioters,  with  still 
greater  reason  could  the  lesser  penalties  be  inflicted. 

The  penalty  of  confiscation  was  especially  cruel,  inas- 
much as  it  affected  the  posterity  of  the  condemned 
heretics.  According  to  the  old  Roman  law,  the 
property  of  heretics  could  be  inherited  by  their  ortho- 
dox sons,  and  even  by  their  agnates  and  cognates.2 
The  laws  of  the  Middle  Ages  declared  confiscation 

1 Lea,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  224. 

2 4 and  19,  cap  De  hcereticis , iv,  5,  Manichceos  and  Cognovimus. 


180 


THE  INQUISITION 


absolute;  on  the  plea  that  heresy  should  be  classed 
with  treason,  orthodox  children  could  not  inherit  the 
property  of  their  heretical  father.1  There  was  but  one 
exception  to  this  law.  Frederic  II  and  Innocent  IV 
both  decreed  that  children  could  inherit  their  father’s 
property,  if  they  denounced  him  for  heresy.2  It  is 
needless  to  insist  upon  the  odious  character  of  such  a 
law.  We  cannot  understand  to-day  how  Gregory  IX 
could  rejoice  on  learning  that  fathers  did  not  scruple 
to  denounce  their  children,  children  their  parents,  a 
wife  her  husband  or  a mother  her  children.3 

Granting  that  banishment  and  confiscation  were  just 
penalties  for  heretics  who  were  also  State  criminals, 
was  it  right  for  the  Church  to  employ  this  penal  system 
for  the  suppression  of  heresy  alone  ? 

It  is  certain  that  the  early  Christians  would  have 
strongly  denounced  such  laws  as  too  much  like  the 
pagan  laws  under  which  they  were  persecuted.  St. 
Hilary  voiced  their  mind  when  he  said:  “ The  Church 
threatens  exile  and  imprisonment;  she  in  whom  men 
formerly  believed  while  in  exile  and  prison,  now  wishes 
to  make  men  believe  her  by  force.”  4 St.  Augustine 
was  of  the  same  mind.  He  thus  addressed  the  Mani- 
cheans,  the  most  hated  sect  of  his  time:  “ Let  those 
who  have  never  known  the  troubles  of  a mind  in  search 
for  the  truth,  proceed  against  you  with  rigor.  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  do  so,  for  I for  years  was  cruelly 
tossed  about  by  your  false  doctrines,  which  I advocated 

1 Decretal  Vergentis  of  Innocent  III.  Decretals,  cap.  x,  De 
Hcereticis , lib.  v,  tit.  vii. 

2 Mon.  Germ.,  Leges , vol.  ii,  sect,  iv,  p.  197;  Ripoll,  Bidlarium 
ordinis  Prcedicat.,  vol.  i,  p.  126. 

3 Bull  GaudemuSy  of  April  12,  1233,  in  Ripoll,  vol.  i,  p.  56. 

4 Liber  contra  Auxentiumy  cap.  iv;  cf.  supra7  p.  6. 


THE  INQUISITION 


181 


and  defended  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  I ought  to 
bear  with  you  now,  as  men  bore  with  me,  when  I 
blindly  accepted  your  doctrines.” 1 Wazo,  Bishop  of 
Liege,  wrote  in  a similar  strain  in  the  eleventh 
century.2 

But,  continued  St.  Augustine,  retracting  his  first 
theory, — and  nearly  all  the  Middle  Ages  agreed  with 
him, — “ these  severe  penalties  are  lawful  and  good 
when  they  serve  to  convert  heretics  by  inspiring  them 
with  a salutary  fear.”  The  end  here  justifies  the 
means. 

Such  reasoning  was  calculated  to  lead  men  to  great 
extremes,  and  was  responsible  for  the  cruel  teaching 
of  the  theologians  of  the  school,  who  were  more  logic- 
ally consistent  than  the  Bishop  of  Hippo.  They  en- 
deavored to  terrorize  heretics  by  the  specter  of  the 
stake.  St.  Augustine,  bold  as  he  was,  shrank  from 
such  barbarity.  But  if,  on  his  own  admission,  the 
logical  consequences  of  the  principle  he  laid  down  were 
to  be  rejected,  did  not  this  prove  the  principle  itself 
false? 

If  we  consider  merely  the  immediate  results  obtained 
by  the  use  of  brute  force,  we  may  indeed  admit  that  it 
benefited  the  Church  by  bringing  back  some  of  her 
erring  children.  But  at  the  same  time  these  cruel 
measures  turned  away  from  Catholicism  in  the  course 
of  ages  many  sensitive  souls,  who  failed  to  recognize 
Christ's  Church  in  a society  which  practiced  such 
cruelty  in  union  with  the  State,  According,  therefore, 

1 Contra  epistolam  Manichcei , quam  vocant  Fundamenti,  n.  2 
and  3,  supra,  p.  12. 

2 Vita  Vasonis , cap.  xxv  and  xxvi,  Migne,  P.  L.,  vol.  cxlii, 
col.  752,  753;  cf.  supra,  p.  51. 


182 


THE  INQUISITION 


to  St.  Augustine’s  own  argument,  his  theory  has  been 
proved  false  by  its  fatal  consequences. 

We  must,  therefore,  return  to  the  first  theory  of  St. 
Augustine,  and  be  content  to  win  heretics  back  to  the 
true  faith  by  purely  moral  constraint.  The  penalties, 
decreed  or  consented  to  by  the  Church,  ought  to  be 
medicinal  in  character,  viz.,  pilgrimages,  flogging,  wear- 
ing the  crosses,  and  the  like.  Imprisonment  may  even 
be  included  in  the  list,  for  temporary  imprisonment  has 
a well-defined  expiatory  character.  In  fact  that  is  why 
in  the  beginning  the  monasteries  made  it  a punish- 
ment for  heresy.  If,  later  on,  the  Church  frequently 
inflicted  the  penalty  of  life  imprisonment,  she  did  so 
because  by  a legal  fiction  she  attributed  to  it  a purely 
penitential  character.  Any  one  of  these  punishments, 
therefore,  may  be  considered  lawful,  provided  it  is  not 
arbitrarily  inflicted.  This  theory  does  not  permit  the 
Church  to  abandon  impenitent  heretics  to  the  secular 
arm.  It  grants  her  only  the  right  of  excommunication, 
according  to  the  penitential  discipline  and  the  primitive 
canon  law  of  the  days  of  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Origen, 
Lactantius,  and  Hilary. 

But  is  this  return  to  antiquity  conformable  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Church?  Can  it  be  reconciled  in  par- 
ticular with  one  of  the  condemned  propositions  of  the 
Syllabus:  Ecclesia  vis  inferendce  potestatem  non  habetf1 
The  Church  has  no  right  to  use  force. 

Without  discussing  this  proposition  at  length,  let  us 
first  state  that  authorities  are  not  agreed  on  its  precise 
meaning.  Every  Catholic  will  admit  that  the  Church 
has  a coercive  power,  in  both  the  external  and  the  in- 
1 Proposit,  xxiv. 


THE  INQUISITION 


183 


ternal  forum.  But  the  question  under  dispute — and 
this  the  Syllabus  does  not  touch — is  whether  the  coer- 
cive power  comprises  merely  spiritual  penalties,  or 
temporal  and  corporal  penalties  as  well.  The  editor 
of  the  Syllabus  did  not  decide  this  question;  he  merely, 
referred  us  to  the  letter  Ad  Ayostolicce  Sedis  of  August 
22,  1851.  But  this  letter  is  not  at  all  explicit;  it 
merely  condemns  those  who  pretend  “ to  deprive  the 
Church  of  the  external  jurisdiction  and  coercive  power 
which  was  given  her  to  win  back  sinners  to  the 
ways  of  righteousness.”  We  would  like  to  find  more 
light  on  this  question  elsewhere.  But  the  theologians 
who  at  the  Vatican  Council  prepared  canons  10  and  12 
of  the  schema  De  Ecclesia  on  this  very  point  of  doctrine 
did  not  remove  the  ambiguity.  They  explicitly  af- 
firmed that  the  Church  had  the  right  to  exercise  over 
her  erring  children  “ constraint  by  an  external  judg- 
ment and  salutary  penalties,”  but  they  said  nothing 
about  the  nature  of  these  penalties.  Was  not  such 
silence  significant?  It  authorized,  one  may  safely  say, 
the  opinion  of  those  who  limited  the  coercive  power  of 
the  Church  to  merely  moral  constraint.  Cardinal 
Soglia,  in  a work  approved  by  Gregory  XVI  and  Pius 
IX,  declared  that  this  opinion  was  “ more  in  harmony 
with  the  gentleness  of  the  Church.”  1 It  also  has  in 
its  favor  Popes  Nicholas  I2  and  Celestine  III,3  who 

1 Institutiones  juris  publici  ecclesiastici , 5 ed.,  Paris,  vol.  i,  pp. 
169,  170. 

2 Nicolai , Ep.  ad  Albinum  archiepiscop.,  in  the  Decretum , Causa 
xxxiii,  quaest.  ii,  cap.  Inter  hoec. 

3 Celestine,  according  to  the  criminal  code  of  his  day,  declared 
that  a guilty  cleric,  once  excommunicated  and  anathematized, 
ought  to  be  abandoned  to  the  secular  arm,  cum  Ecclesia  non 
habeat  ultra  quid  faciat.  Decretals,  cap.  x,  De  judiciis}  lib.  ii, 
tit.  i.  This  was  the  common  teaching. 


184 


THE  INQUISITION 


claimed  for  the  Church  of  which  they  were  the  head 
the  right  to  use  only  the  spiritual  sword.  Without 
enumerating  all  the  modern  authors  who  hold  this 
view,  we  will  quote  a work  which  has  just  appeared 
with  the  imprimatur  of  Father  Lepidi,  the  Master  of 
the  Sacred  Palace,  in  which  we  find  the  two  following 
theses  proved:  1.  “ Constraint,  in  the  sense  of  em- 
ploying violence  to  enforce  ecclesiastical  laws,  origi- 
nated with  the  State.”  2.  “The  constraint  of  ecclesi- 
astical laws  is  by  divine  right  exclusively  moral  con- 
straint.”  1 

Indeed,  to  maintain  that  the  Church  should  use 
material  force,  is  at  once  to  make  her  subject  to  the 
State;  for  we  can  hardly  picture  her  with  her  own 
police  and  gendarmes,  ready  to  punish  her  rebellious 
children.  Every  Catholic  believes  that  the  Church 
is  an  independent  society,  fully  able  to  carry  out  her 
divine  mission  without  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm. 
Whether  governments  are  favorable  or  hostile  to  her, 
she  must  pursue  her  course  and  carry  on  her  work  of 
salvation  under  them  all. 

“ Heresy,”  writes  Jean  Guiraud,  “ in  the  Middle 
Ages  was  nearly  always  connected  with  some  anti- 
social sect.  In  a period  when  the  human  mind  usually 
expressed  itself  in  a theological  form,  socialism,  com- 
munism, and  anarchy  appeared  under  the  form  of 
heresy.  By  the  very  nature  of  things,  therefore,  the 

1 Salvatore  di  Bartolo.  Nuova  espozitione  dei  criteri  teologici, 
Roma,  1904,  pp.  303,  314.  The  first  edition  of  this  work  was 
put  upon  the  Index.  The  second  edition,  revised  and  corrected, 
and  published  with  the  approbation  of  Father  Lepidi,  has  all 
the  more  weight  and  authority. 


THE  INQUISITION 


185 


interests  of  both  Church  and  State  were  identical; 
this  explains  the  question  of  the  suppression  of  heresy 
in  the  Middle  Ages.”  1 

We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  that  when  Church 
and  State  found  themselves  menaced  by  the  same  peril, 
they  agreed  on  the  means  of  defence.  If  we  deduct 
from  the  total  number  of  heretics  burned  or  imprisoned 
the  disturbers  of  the  social  order  and  the  criminals 
against  the  common  law,  the  number  of  condemned 
heretics  will  be  very  small. 

Heretics  in  the  Middle  Ages  were  considered  amen- 
able to  the  laws  of  both  Church  and  State.  Men  of 
that  time  could  not  conceive  of  God  and  His  revelation 
without  defenders  in  a Christian  kingdom.  Magis- 
trates were  considered  responsible  for  the  sins  com- 
mitted against  the  law  of  God.  Indirectly,  therefore, 
heresy  was  amenable  to  their  tribunal.  They  felt  it 
their  right  and  duty  to  punish  not  only  crimes  against 
society,  but  sins  against  faith. 

The  Inquisition,  established  to  judge  heretics,  is, 
therefore,  an  institution  whose  severity  and  cruelty 
are  explained  by  the  ideas  and  manners  of  the  age. 
We  will  never  understand  it,  unless  we  consider  it  in 
its  environment,  and  from  the  viewpoint  of  men  like 
St.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  St.  Louis,  who  dominated 
their  age  by  their  genius.  Critics  who  are  ignorant 
of  the  Middle  Ages  may  feel  at  liberty  to  shower 
insult  and  contempt  upon  a judicial  system  whose 
severity  is  naturally  repugnant  to  them.  But  con- 
tempt does  not  always  imply  a reasonable  judgment, 
and  to  abuse  an  institution  is  not  necessarily  a proof 

1 Jean  Guiraud,  La  repression  de  I’herSsie  an  moyen  dge,  in  the 
Questions  d1  arch&ologie  et  d’histoire , p.  44. 


186 


THE  INQUISITION 


of  intelligence.  If  we  would  judge  an  epoch  intelli- 
gently, we  must  be  able  to  grasp  the  viewpoint  of 
other  men,  even  if  they  lived  in  an  age  long  past. 

But  although  we  grant  the  good  faith  and  good  will 
of  the  founders  and  judges  of  the  Inquisition — we 
speak  only,  be  it  understood,  of  those  who  acted  con- 
scientiously— we  must  still  maintain  that  their  idea 
of  justice  was  far  inferior  to  ours.  Whether  taken  in 
itself  or  compared  with  other  criminal  procedures,  the 
Inquisition  was,  so  far  as  the  guarantees  of  equity  are 
concerned,  undoubtedly  unjust  and  inferior.  Such 
judicial  forms  as  the  secrecy  of  the  trial,  the  prosecu- 
tion carried  on  independently  of  the  prisoner,  the 
denial  of  advocate  and  defence,  the  use  of  torture,  etc., 
were  certainly  despotic  and  barbarous.  Severe  penal- 
ties, like  the  stake  and  confiscation,  were  the  legacy 
which  a pagan  legislation  bequeathed  to  the  Christian 
State;  they  were  alien  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel. 

The  Church  in  a measure  felt  this,  for  to  enforce 
these  laws  she  always  had  recourse  to  the  secular  arm. 
In  time,  all  this  criminal  code  was  to  fall  into  desu- 
etude, and  no  one  to-day  wishes  it  back  again.  Be- 
sides, the  crying  abuses  committed  by  some  of  the 
Inquisitors  have  made  the  institution  forever  odious. 

But  in  abandoning  the  system  of  force,  which  she 
formerly  used  in  union  with  the  State,  does  not  the 
Church  seem  to  condemn,  to  a certain  degree,  her  past? 

Even  if  to-day  she  were  to  denounce  the  Inquisition, 
she  would  not  thereby  compromise  her  divine  author- 
ity. Her  office  on  earth  is  to  transmit  to  generation 
after  generation  the  deposit  of  revealed  truths  neces- 
sary for  man's  salvation.  That  to  safeguard  this 
treasure  she  uses  means  in  one  age  which  a later  age 


THE  INQUISITION 


187 


denounces,  merely  proves  that  she  follows  the  customs 
and  ideas  in  vogue  around  her.  But  she  takes  good 
care  not  to  have  men  consider  her  attitude  the  infallible 
and  eternal  rule  of  absolute  justice.  She  readily  ad- 
mits that  she  may  sometimes  be  deceived  in  the  choice 
of  means  of  government.  The  system  of  defence  and 
protection  that  she  adopted  in  the  Middle  Ages  suc- 
ceeded, at  least  to  some  extent.  We  cannot  maintain 
that  it  was  absolutely  unjust  and  absolutely  immoral. 

Undoubtedly  we  have  to-day  a much  higher  ideal  of 
justice.  But  though  we  deplore  the  fact  that  the 
Church  did  not  then  perceive,  preach  or  apply  it,  we 
need  not  be  surprised.  In  social  questions  she  ordi- 
narily progresses  with  the  march  of  civilization,  of 
which  she  is  ever  one  of  the  prime  movers. 

But  perhaps  men  may  blame  her  for  having  aban- 
doned and  betrayed  the  cause  of  toleration,  which  she 
so  ably  defended  in  the  beginning.  Do  not  let  us 
exaggerate.  There  was,  undoubtedly,  a period  in 
which  she  did  not  deduce,  from  the  principle  she  was 
the  first  to  teach,  all  its  logical  consequences.  The 
laws  she  enforced  against  heretics  prove  this.  But  it 
is  false  to  say  that,  while  in  the  beginning  she  insisted 
strongly  on  the  rights  of  conscience,  she  afterwards 
totally  disregarded  them.  In  fact,  she  exercised  con- 
straint only  over  her  own  stray  children.  But  while 
she  acted  so  cruelly  toward  them,  she  never  ceased  to 
respect  the  consciences  of  those  outside  her  fold.  She 
always  interpreted  the  compelle  intrare  to  imply  with 
regard  to  unbelievers  moral  constraint,  and  the  means 
of  gentleness  and  persuasion.  If  respect  for  human 
liberty  is  to-day  dominant  in  the  thinking  world,  it 
is  due  chiefly  to  her. 


188 


THE  INQUISITION 


In  the  matter  of'  tolerance,  the  Church  has  only  to 
study  her  own  history.  If,  during  several  centuries, 
she  treated  her  rebellious  children  with  greater  severity 
than  those  alien  to  her  fold,  it  was  not  from  a want  of 
consistency.  And  if  to-day  she  manifests  to  every 
one  signs  of  her  maternal  kindness,  and  lays  aside  for 
ever  all  physical  constraint,  she  is  not  following  the 
example  of  non-Catholics,  but  merely  taking  up  again 
the  interrupted  tradition  of  her  early  Fathers. 


INDEX 


Abjuration,  92 

Abrenuntiatio  of  the  Cathari, 
61 

Absolution,  mutual  of  In- 
quisitors, 110 
Accusatio,  120 

Adalbero,  Bishop  of  Liege, 
on  tolerance  of,  29 
Adam,  trial  of,  121 
Ad  Extir  panda  j the  bull, 
104,  108,  109 
Adoptianism,  24 
Adrian  IV,  and  Arnold  of 
Brescia,  30 

Advocates,  denied  by  Inqui- 
sition, 89 

Alba,  Cathari  of,  51 
Albertus  Magnus,  and  witch- 
craft, 118 

Albigenses,  crusade  against, 
45 

Alexander  III,  his  laws 
against  heresy,  42,  43 
Alexander  IV,  and  torture, 
108,  110 

on  testimony  of  heretics,  89 
Alexis  Comnenus,  50 
Amaury  de  Beynes,  41 
Ambrose,  St.,  denounces  the 
condemnation  of  Pris- 
cillian,  20 

Animadversion  various  mean- 
ings of,  43,  45,  75,  76, 
79,  94,  126,  128 


Annibale,  Senator  of  Rome, 
79 

Anselm  of  Lucca,  47 
Apparellamentum , of  the 
Cathari,  65 
Apringius,  14 

Arcadius,  law  against  here- 
tics, 154 

Arnold  of  Brescia,  30 
Augustine,  St.,  his  tolera- 
tion, 9 

and  the  Donatists,  12-16 
his  denunciation  of  Pris- 
eillianism,  20 
Auto-da-fe,  99,  141,  150 

Bagolenses,  52 
Ban,  the  imperial,  43,  76 
Banishment,  for  heresy,  43, 
48,  123,  126,  154 
Baptism,  rejected  by  Cath- 
ari, 54 

Benencasa,  48 

Bernard,  St.,  on  toleration,  34 
opposes  Arnold  of  Brescia, 
30 

Bernard,  St.,  opposes  Henry 
of  Lausanne,  30 
Bernard  of  Caux,  his  treat- 
ment of  the  relapsed, 
126 

his  sentences,  140 
Bernard  of  Como,  on  the 
witches’  Sabbat,  119 


189 


190 


INDEX 


Bernard  Gui,  and  the  In- 
quisitorial procedure, 
120 

approves  of  torture,  112 
his  sentences,  141 
Bleda,  and  the  banishment  of 
the  Moriscos,  145 
Bogomiles,  50 
Bonacursus,  51 
Boniface  VIII,  98,  168 
Braisne,  Cathari  burned  at, 
41 

Bread,  blessed  of  Cathari,  64 
Bullinger  approves  of  death 
penalty  for  heresy,  163 

Caesarius  of  Heisterbach,  on 
the  number  of  the  Cath- 
ari, 51 

Calixtus  II,  36. 

Calvin,  advocates  death 
penalty,  163 

Cambrai,  heretic  burned  at, 
27 

Capital  punishment,  denied 
by  Cathari,  57 
Cathari,  different  names  of, 
52 

fasting  of,  65 
hierarchy  of,  58 
number  of,  51 
their  teachings,  52  et  seq. 
Celestine  III,  183 
Celibacy,  Catharan  idea  of, 
66-70 

Catholic  idea  of,  74 
Chalons,  Cathari  at,  26 
Charles  II  (England),  162 
Chrysostom,  St.,  on  toler- 
ation, 22 

Circumcelliones,  8,  11 
Clement  IV,  and  torture,  108 
and  the  episcopal  Inquisi- 
tion, 98 


Clement  IV,  enforces  bull  Ad 
Extirpanda,  105 
on  the  number  of  witnesses, 
88 

Clement  V,  and  the  Templars, 
136 

and  prison  reform,  103 
on  the  cruelty  of  Inquisitors, 
135 

Coals,  torture  of  the  burning, 
110 

Cologne,  heretics  burned  at, 
29,  40 

Concorrezenses , 52 
Confiscation,  42,  44,  48,  123, 
126,  147-149 

Conrad  of  Marburg,  82,  87,  93 
Consolamentum,  54,  59,  60 
Constantine  the  Great,  4,  53 
Convenenza , 59 
Council  of  Rome  (313),  11 J 
of  Arles  (314),  11 
of  Mainz  (848),  25 
of  Quierzy  (849),  25 
of  Rheims  (1049),  36 
of  Toulouse  (1119),  36,  66 
of  Rheims  (1148),  31 
of  Tours  (1163),  41,  42 
of  Verona  (1184),  103 
of  Avignon  (1209),  39,  48 
of  Lateran  (1215),  45,  76 
of  Narbonne  (1227),  84 
of  Toulouse  (1229),  76,  102 
Cyprian,  St.,  on  toleration,  3 

Decretals,  respect  due  to  the, 
117 

De  lioeretico  comburendo , 161, 
162 

Demons,  succubi  and  incubi,  146 
Denunciation,  duty  of,  88 
Denuntiatio,  120 
Dominicans,  as  Inquisitors,  85 
Donatists,  10  et  seq. 


INDEX 


191 


Edict  of  Milan,  4 
Edward  VI  (England),  161 
Elipandus,  24 
Elizabeth  (England),  162 
Endura,  70-72 

Eon  de  TEtoile,  31 
Eriberto,  28 
Eugenius  III,  47,  31 
Evervin,  34 
Evodius,  18 

Excommunication  of  abettors 
of  heresy,  44,  104,  105 
of  heretics,  123 

Exhumation,  of  dead  heretics, 
148 

Experts,  for  heresy  trials,  99 
assembly  of,  99-101 
Eymeric,  and  the  Inquisitorial 
procedure,  120 
on  torture,  121 
picture  of  ideal  Inquisitor, 
113 

Farel,  approves  of  death- 
penalty,  162 

Fasts  of  the  Cathari,  65 
Felix  of  Urgel,  24 
Flogging,  13,  106,  108 
Franciscans,  as  Inquisitors,  85 
Frederic  II  (Emperor),  his 
legislation  against  heresy, 
77,  89,  94,  95,  173 
his  influence  upon  Gregory 
IX,  80 

uses  Inquisition  for  political 
ends,  136 

Geroch  of  Reichersberg,  34, 
37 

Godescalcus,  on  predestina- 
tion, 25 

Goslar,  heretics  hanged  at, 
27 


Grace,  time  of,  88 
Gratian,  39,  47,  106 
Gregory  IX,  and  torture,  107 
his  laws  against  ordeals,  107 
his  legislation  against  heresy, 
78,  81,  94 

institutes  the  Inquisition, 
81,  83 

Gregory  X,  and  the  Episcopal 
Inquisition,  98 

Guala,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  77, 
78 

Gui  Foucois,  cf.  Clement  IV 
Guibert  de  Nogent,  29 
Guillaume,  Archbishop  of 
Rheims,  40 
Guiraud,  184 

Henry  III  (Emperor),  27 
Henry  V (England),  161 
Henry  VIII  (England),  161 
Henry  of  Lausanne,  30 
Henry  of  Milan,  81 
Henry  of  Susa,  128 
Heresy,  a political  factor,  136 
a public  crime,  173 
considered  treason,  77,  80 
definitions  of,  116 
of  the  Cathari,  52  et  seq. 
relapse  into,  126,  127 
Heretication,  56,  58,  59,  60, 
68,  154 

Hilary,  St.,  on  toleration,  5 
Hincmar,  Archbishop  of 
Rheims,  25 

Honorius  III,  his  legislation 
against  heretics,  77 
his  law  against  ordeals,  107 
Honorius  IV,  132 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  40 
Huguccio,  advocates  death- 
penalty,  47 
Humiliati,  45 
Huss,  164 


192 


INDEX 


Idacius,  18 

Imprisonment,  a n t e c e dent, 
108,  169 

character  of,  102,  137,  138, 
142 

for  relapse,  237 
purpose  of,  37 

Innocent  III,  and  the  Patarins, 
115 

classes  heresy  with  treason, 
45 

does  not  inflict  death  pen- 
alty, 46 

his  laws  against  ordeals,  107 
his  legislation  on  heresy, 
43-46 

his  treatment  of  Raymond 
VI,  46 

Innocent  IV,  and  the  episco- 
pal Inquisition,  98 
authorizes  torture,  105,  107 
his  legislation  against  heresy, 
104,  108,  110 

Innocent  VIII,  his  bull  on 
sorcery,  146 

In  pace,  140 

Inquisitor,  aged  required,  93 
cruelty  of,  134,  135 
duties  of,  87 
portrait  of,  93 

Inquisitio,  120 

Inquisition,  development  of,  86 
et  seq. 

its  origin,  81,  83 
its  spread,  132  et  seq. 
number  of  victims  of,  172 
political  use  of,  136 
procedure  of,  167 
the  episcopal,  83,  97 
the  legatine,  85 
used  against  Joan  of  Arc, 
137 

used  to  crush  the  Templars, 
136 


Intolerance,  natural  to  man, 
155 

of  Plato,  156 
of  sovereigns,  156 
Irregularity,  incurred  by  In- 
quisitors, 110 
Isidore,  St.,  of  Seville,  23 
Ithacius,  18 
Ivo  of  Chartres,  47 

Jailers,  rules  for,  138 
Jean  Galand,  134 
Jeanne  de  la  Tour,  139 
Jean  d7 Andre,  128 
Jerome,  St.,  denounces  Pris- 
cillianism,  20 
his  idea  of  schism,  116 
Jews,  and  usury,  118 
banished  from  Spain,  145 
Joan  of  Arc,  137 
John  Teutonicus,  47 
Justinian,  code  of,  47 

Kiss,  Catharan,  of  peace,  63 

Lactantius,  on  toleration,  4 
Lateran,  cf.  Council. 

Lea,  admits  the  small  number 
of  victims,  150 
estimate  of  his  history,  vi 
Leo,  St.,  the  Great,  and  the 
Priscillianists,  21 
on  persecution,  21 
Leo  IX,  36 
Lollardy,  161 
Louis  VIII  (France),  75 
Louis  IX,  St.  (France),  75 
Lucas,  Bishop  of  Tuy,  85 
Lucius  III,  his  legislation 
against  heresy,  43,  103 
his  decretal  ad  Abolendam , 
126 

regulates  the  episcopal  In- 
quisition, 83 


INDEX 


193 


Magic,  accusation  against  Pris- 

cillain,  19 

considered  heresy,  118 
Maistre,  Joseph  de,  176 
Malleus  Maleficarum , 130,  146 
Manicheans,  persecution  of,  9, 
10 

law  of  Diocletian  against,  8 
Marriage,  denounced  by  Cath- 
ari,  66  et  seq. 

Marsollier,  Jacques,  vi,  110 
Martin,  St.,  his  tolerance,  18 
Martin  V,  and  usurers,  118 
Maximus  (Emperor),  18 
Metempsychosis,  of  the  Cath- 
ari,  66 

Milan,  heretics  burned  at,  28, 
81 

Molay,  Jacques,  136 
Monteforte,  heretics  burned 
at,  28 

Mont-Wimer,  heretics  burned 
at,  82 

Moranis,  133 
Moriscos,  145 

Names,  of  witnesses  withheld, 
90 

Newman,  Cardinal,  on  sup- 
pression of  facts,  viii 
Nevers,  heretics  burned  at, 
41 

Nicholas  I,  denounces  the  use 
of  torture,  106,  170 
on  ecclesiastical  penalties, 
187 

Nicholas  IV,  his  legislation 
against  heresy,  105 

Oath,  use  of,  denounced  by  the 
Cathari,  56 

Optatus,  St.,  advocates  the 
death  penalty,  11 
Ordeals,  91,  106 


Origen,  tolerance  of,  3 
Orleans,  heretics  burned  at, 
26 

Pamiers,  registers  of,  141,  143 
Panormia , 47 
Paramo,  121,  146 
Paris,  heretics  burned  at,  41 
Pastor,  on  Innocent  VIII, 
146 

Patarins,  52 
Patricius,  19 

Paul,  St.,  excommunicates 
heretics,  1 

Paulicians,  massacre  of,  50 
Peter  of  Bruys,  29 
Peter  Cantor,  34,  37,  178 
Peter,  St.,  of  Verona,  81 
Pierre  Cauchon,  137 
Pierre  Mauran,  41 
Philip  Augustus,  41 
Philip,  Count  of  Flanders,  40 
Philip  the  Fair,  134,  136 
Pilgrimages,  as  penances,  88 
Plato,  156 

Prayer,  the  Lord’s,  61 
Primacy,  of  the  Pope,  denied 
by  the  Cathari,  53 
Priscillianism,  17-21 
Probatio  of  the  Cathari,  62 

Rack,  torture  of,  109 
Raymond  V,  41 
Raymond,  St.,  of  Pennafort, 
116-123 

Relapse,  penalty  for,  126,  127, 
155,  174 

Responsibility  of  the  Church 
in  the  infliction  of  the 
death  penalty,  31,  32,  37, 
103  et  seq.,  128  et  seq. 
Ritual,  of  the  Cathari,  61,  62 
Robert  the  Bougre,  133 
Robert  the  Pious,  26 


194 


INDEX 


Roman  law,  revival  of,  39, 
107 

Rome,  Patarins,  burned  in,  79 

Sabbat,  the  witches’,  118 
Sacraments,  denied  by  the 
Cathari,  54 

Sardinia,  inquisition  in,  132 
Cathari  in,  28 
Savonarola,  135 
Secrecy  of  the  Inquisition, 
121 

Secular  arm,  abandonment  to 
the,  43,  48,  92,  127,  129, 
143 

Sermo  generalise  99,  141,  150 
Servetus,  163 

Sicilian  Code,  of  Frederic  II, 
80,  81,  107,  115,  154,  158 
Simon  de  Montfort,  42 
Soglia,  Cardinal,  theory  of 
toleration,  183 

Soissons,  heretics  burned  at,  28 
Sophronisteria,  156 
Spain,  Inquisition  in,  137,  144, 
145 

Speronistae,  52 
Sprenger,  130,  146 
Stake,  penalty  of  the,  24,  27, 
28,  29,  40,  41,  43,  45,  46, 
77,  81,  82,  92,  94,  143, 
144,  174 

Strasburg,  heretics  burned  at, 
78 

Suger,  Abbot,  31 
Sulpicius  Severus,  20 
Superstition,  classed  as  heresy, 
117 

Syllabus,  the,  182 
Synodal  witnesses,  84 

Talio , penalty  of  the,  120 
Taxation,  its  lawfulness  de- 
nied by  the  Cathari,  56 


Templars,  136 

Tertullian,  on  toleration,  2,  3 
Theodora,  the  Empress,  50 
Theodore  of  Beza,  164 
Theodosius  I (Emperor),  7 
Theodosius  II  (Emperor),  7 
Theodwin  of  Liege,  33 
Theognitus,  22 

Thomas  Aquinas,  St.,  defini- 
tion of  heresy,  116 
defends  the  death  penalty, 
123  et  seq. 

on  the  relapsed,  126,  173 
Torquemada,  144,  145 
Torture,  condemned  by  Nicho- 
las I,  106,  170 
different  forms  of,  108-110 
in  the  trials  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, 106-114,  169 
length  of,  111 
of  witnesses,  122 
presence  of  clerics  at,  110 
recommended  by  Bernard 
Gui,  112 

repetition  of,  121 
value  of  confessions,  ex- 
torted by,  111 

Transmigration,  of  souls,  60 

Urban  IV,  and  the  episcopal 
Inquisition,  98 
and  the  Inquisitorial  pro- 
cedure, 120 
and  torture,  111 
Usury,  118 

Valentinian  I,  7 
Veneration  of  Cathari,  59 
Verona,  heretics  burned  at,  81 
Veronese  code,  107 
Vestment,  sacred,  of  the  Cath- 
ari, 63 

Vezelai,  heretics  burned  at, 
40 


INDEX 


195 


Vilgard,  27 

Viterbo,  Paterins  at,  45 

War.  denounced  by  Cathari, 
57 

Wazo,  of  Liege,  33 
Witchcraft,  146,  147 
Witnesses,  character  of,  88 
dangers  incurred  by,  90 


Witnesses,  few  for  the  defence, 
89 

number  required,  88 
refused  for  enmity,  89 
Synodal,  84 
Wyclif,  160 

Zanchino  Ugolino,  117 
Zurkinden,  164 


Longmans,  Green,  & Co.’s  Publications 


WILLIAM  PARDOW  OF  THE  COMPANY  OF  JESUS.  By  Justine 
Ward.  With  4 Portraits.  Small  8vo.  #1.50  net. 

In  this  life  of  Father  William  O'Brien  Pardow , the  celebrated  Jesuit  preacher 
who  died  in  1909,  he  is  depicted  as  the  embodiment  of  Jesuit  principles , the  result 
of  Jesuit  training.  The  aim  of  the  author  has  been  to  give  an  account  of  a man 
who  responded  fully  to  that  training  and  whose  life  was  a direct  outgrowth  of  those 
great  principles — taken  literally — which  Ignatius  gave  to  his  little  band  as  their 
working  principles:  and  who  brought  them  to  bear  in  practice , directly  and  without 
reservation  of  any  kind , without  thought  of  self  fear  of  others. 

The  volume  contains  a clear  account  of  the  rules , methods  and  procedure  of  the 
Jesuits , the  internal  government  of  the  Order  and  the  formation  of  its  members  in 
a way  that  is  not  generally  considered  available  to  the  layman. 

“ There  is  not  a dull  page  in  the  book  and  many  a passage  will  be  read  and  reread 
because  of  its  rare  charm  of  style.  The  author  has  managed  to  crowd  into  a single 
passage  at  times  a wealth  of  principle  and  suggestion  which  is  seldom  equalled,. 
This  book  should  be  widely  read.  1 1 should  be  found  on  the  shelves  of  every  Catholic 
school  library  and  in  every  Catholic  home  in  the  land." — Catholic  Educational 
Review. 

LOURDES.  By  Johannes  Jorgensen.  Translated  with  the  Author’s 
Sanction  from  the  Original  Danish  by  Ingeborg  Lund.  With  a Preface 
by  Hilaire  Belloc.  With  8 Illustrations  and  a Map.  Crown  8vo. 
Pp.  xviii  + 195*  $0.90  net. 

“.  . .Lourdes.  . .is  a delight  from  start  to  finish.  It  reads  like  a romance.  Mr. 
Hilaire  Belloc  contributes  an  Introduction  no  less  spontaneous  and  charged  with 
invincible  argument.  An  altogether  remarkable  book.  . . .” — Ave  Maria. 

THE  SERMON  OF  THE  SEA,  and  Other  Studies.  By  the  Rev.  Robert 
Kane,  S.J.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xii+334*  $i-50  net. 

“ The  outcome  of  deep  thought , presented  in  a brilliant  style  by  a vivid  imagina- 
tion. A use  to  which  some  of  them  might  well  be  put  would,  be  as  readings  during 
retreats  in  religious  communities  and  in  colleges  and  academies , especially  as  the 
papers  seem  to  follow  in  some  degree  the  course  of  the  Spiritual  Exercises." — Mes- 
senger of  the  Sacred  Heart. 

“ The  priest  will  gather  from  it  inspirations  and  suggestions  to  quicken  his  spirit 
and  to  utilize  the  ministry  of  nature  in  uplifting  himself  and  his  people .” — Ec- 
clesiastical Review. 

GOOD  FRIDAY  TO  EASTER  SUNDAY.  By  the  Rev.  Robert  Kane, 
S.J.  Crown  8vo.  $0.90  net. 

“ Richness  of  thought  and  aspiration  and  unction  is  here  for  the  soul's  feeding. 
In  some  respects t these  sermons  represent , we  think , his  happiest  inspiration." — 

America. 

FROM  FETTERS  TO  FREEDOM:  Trials  and  Triumphs  of  Irish  Faith. 

By  the  Rev.  Robert  Kane,  S.J.  Crown  8vo.  $1.50  net. 

CATHOLIC  DEMOCRACY,  INDIVIDUALISM  AND  SOCIALISM.  By 
Henry  C.  Day,  S.J.,  Author  of  Marriage,  Morality,  and  Divorce.”  With 
a Preface  by  His  Eminence,  Francis  Cardinal  Bourne,  Archbishop  of 
Westminster.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  viii  + 293.  $1.80  net. 

The  need  of  a comprehensive  work  dealing  with  social  science  on  Christian 
lines  has  been  increasingly  felt  during  the  past  twenty  years.  This  need  is  supplied 
in  the  present  volume , in  which  the  author  reviews  and  criticises  the  main  economical 
and  political  system  of  modern  times. 

THE  STRAIGHT  PATH;  Or,  Marks  of  the  True  Church.  By  the  Rev.  M. 
J.  Phelan,  S.J.,  Author  of  “The  Young  Priest’s  Keepsake.’!  Crown 
8vo.  $0.80  net. 

Contents: — Prologue;  The  True  Church  Must  be  One;  The  Catholic  Church 
is  One;  No  Other  Church  is  One;  The  Holiness  of  the  True  Church;  The  Catholicity 
of  the  True  Church;  The  Apostolicity  of  the  True  Church;  Epilogue . 


Longmans,  Green,  & Co.’s  Publications 


PRAGMATISM  AND  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  IDEA.  By  the  Rev.  John 
T.  Driscoll,  S.T.L.,  Author  of  “Christian  Philosophy:  The  Soul,”  etc. 
Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xxviii+274.  $1.50  net. 

THE  PERSONALITY  OF  CHRIST.  By  Dom  Anscar  Vonier,  O.S.B., 
Abbot  of  Buckfast.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  viii  + 275.  $1.75  net. 

This  hook  is  intended  as  a Popular  and  non-technical  rendering  of  the  most 
important  sections  of  the  third  part  of  the  Summa  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas , a trans- 
lation of  which  is  being  brought  out  by  the  English  Fathers  of  the  Dominican  Order. 
It  is  hoped  that  Dom  Vonier' s book  will  assist  thoughtful  readers  to  deal  with  the 
various  questions  which  arise  in  endeavoring  to  grasp  the  significance  of  the  Person- 
ality of  Christ. 

REFLECTIONS  OF  A NON-COMBATANT.  By  M.  D.  Petre.  Crown 
8vo.  Pp.  xii  + 142.  $0.75  net. 

The  reflections  of  this  non-combatant  are  not  set  forth  as  an  indictment  of  German 
politics  and  German  military  methods,  but  as  an  indictment  of  the  temper  that  lies 
behind  such  politics  and  such  methods , whether  they  be  found  amongst  Germans,  or 
others;  an  indictment  of  the  national  temper  that  is  opposed  to  universal  human 
progress  and  can  only  find  a suitable  vent  in  Macchiavellian  diplomacy  and  bar- 
barous warfare. 

She  3Uratminatrr  Urrutmt  nf  tb?  i5>arrcb  g’mptures 

Undertaken  with  the  Approval  of  the  Cardinal  Archbishop  and  the  Catholic 
Hierarchy.  General  Editors:  The  Rev.  Cuthbert  Latte y,  S.J.,  Professor  of 
Sacred  Scripture  at  St.  Beuno’s  College,  North  Wales;  and  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Keating,  S.J.,  Editor  of  The  Month. 

Vol.  III.,  Part  I— THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIAN S.  By  the 
Rev.  Cuthbert  Lattey,  S.J.  Newly  Translated  from  the  Original  Text, 
with  Introduction,  Critical  and  Explanatory  Notes,  Appendix,  and  Map. 
8vo.  Pp.  48.  Paper  Covers , $0.20  net;  Boards , $0.40  net. 

Vol.  III.,  Part  II— THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  By 
the  Rev.  Cuthbert  Lattey,  S.J.  8vo.  Pp.  xx  + 72.  Paper  Covers , 
$0.30  net;  Boards,  So. 50  net. 

Vol.  III.,  Part  V— THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  CAPTIVITY.  Ephesians  and 
Colossians,  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Rickaby,  S.J.;  Philemon  and  Philippians, 
by  the  Rev.  A.  Goodier,  S.J.  8vo.  Paper  Covers , So. 25  net;  Boards , 
So. 40  net. 

Vol.  IV.,  Part  III— THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  ST.  JOHN.  By  the  Rev. 
Francis  Gigot,  S.T.D.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture,  Yonkers,  New  York. 
8vo.  Paper  Covers,  S0.30  net;  Boards,  So.so  net. 


SOME  NEW  SOURCES  FOR  THE  LIFE  OF  BLESSED  AGNES  OF  BO- 
HEMIA: including  a Fourteenth  Century  Latin  Version  and  a Fifteenth 
Century  German  Version.  By  Walter  W.  Seton,  M.A.,  D.Lit.  Crown 
8vo.  With  2 Photogravures  and  4 Collotype  Plates.  S2.00  net. 

This  book  presents  to  English  readers  an  account  of  the  Life  of  Blessed  Agnes  of 
Bohemia,  one  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  Order  founded  by  Saint  Clare 
at  the  dawn  of  the  13 th  Century . 

THE  WORKS  OF  THE  LATE  REV.  B.  W.  MATURIN.  Cheap  Issues. 
Crown  8vo.  Si. 00  net,  each  volume. 

Laws  of  the  Spiritual  Life. 

Some  Principles  and  Practices  of  the  Spiritual  Life. 

Self-Knowledge  and  Self-Discipline. 

Practical  Studies  on  the  Parables  of  our  Lord. 

The  Price  of  Unity. 

CHEAPER  EDITION 

THE  INQUISITION.  A Critical  and  Historical  Study  of  the  Coercive  Power 
of  the  Church.  By  the  Abb£  Vacandard.  Translated  from  the  French 
by  the  Rev.  Bertrand  L.  Conway,  C.S.P.  Paper  Covers  So. 50  net. 


Longmans,  Green,  & Co.’s  Publications 


THE  ENGLISH  CATHOLIC  REFUGEES  ON  THE  CONTINENT,  1558- 
1795.  Vol.  I.  The  English  Colleges  and  Convents  in  the  Catholic  Low- 
Countries,  1558-1795.  By  the  Rev.  Peter  Guilday,  Docteur  es  Sciences 
Morales  et  Historiques  (Louvain),  instructor  in  Church  History,  Catholic 
University  of  America.  8vo.  Pp.liv  + 480.  $2.75  net. 

The  object  of  this  book  is  to  present  a synthetic  history  of  the  English  Catholic 
refugees  on  the  continent.  It  follows  the  fortunes  of  the  first  exiles — students  and 
professors  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  members  of  the  religious  orders,  and  individual 
laymen  and  women  who  left  England  shortly  after  the  passing  of  the  Acts  of  Uni- 
formity and  Supremacy  in  1559,  and  describes  the  two  centuries  and  a half  of 
exile  which  followed  down  to  the  French  Revolution , when  the  English  Catholic 
exiles  returned  to  England. 

INTRODUCTORY  PHILOSOPHY:  A Text-Book  for  Colleges  and  High 

Schools.  By  Charles  A.  Dubray,  S.M.,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Philosophy 
at  the  Marist  College,  Washington,  D.  C.  With  a Preface  by  Professor 
E.  D.  Pace,  of  the  Catholic  University,  Washington,  D.  C.  Small  8vo, 
$2.60. 

THE  SCIENCE  OF  LOGIC:  An  Inquiry  into  the  Principles  of  Accurate 

Thought  and  Scientific  Method.  By  P.  Coffey,  Ph.D.  (Louvain),  Pro- 
fessor of  Logic  and  Metaphysics,  Maynooth  College,  Ireland.  In  Two 
Volumes.  8vo.  Vol.  I.  Conception,  Judgment,  and  Inference.  $2.50  net 
Vol.  II.  Method,  Science,  and  Certitude.  $2.50  net. 

TEACHER  AND  TEACHING.  By  the  Rev.  Richard  H.  Tierney,  S.J.. 
Editor  of  America.  Crown  8vo.  $1.00  net. 

**  These  essays  are  full  of  wise  thought  and  excellent  suggestion , and  should  prove 
thoroughly  stimulating  to  all  who  are  concerned  in  the  responsible  as  well  as  noble 
work  of  Catholic  education .” — Ave  Maria. 

THE  EDUCATION  OF  CATHOLIC  GIRLS.  By  Janet  Erskine  Stuart. 
With  Preface  by  H.  E.  the  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  Westminster.  Crown 
8vo.  $1.25  net. 

A bock  of  much  importance  to  every  parent  and  teacher  of  you'ng  girls , by  the 
Sister  Superior-General  of  the  Society  of  the  Sacred  Heart.  It  abounds  in  search- 
ing observations  and  judicious  counsels  on  the  various  problems  of  female  education . 

SPIRITUAL  GLEANINGS  FOR  MARIAN  SODALISTS.  By  Madame 
Cecilia,  Religious  of  St.  Andrew’s  Convent,  Streatham,  London,  S.W. 
With  Frontispiece.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  x + 216.  $1.00  net. 

A collection  of  37  short  spiritual  readings  suitable  for  private  use  or  for  reading 
aloud  at  the  weekly  meetings  of  the  Sodalists.  Part  I.  contains  twenty  readings 
on  various  truths  suggested  by  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Part  II.  deals  with 
miscellaneous  subjects , such  as  the  choice  of  a profession;  self-knowledge;  passive 
means  of  sanctification;  the  liturgy  of  the  Church;  an  ideal  Marian  Sodality , etc. 

THROUGH  AN  ANGLICAN  SISTERHOOD  TO  ROME.  By  A.  H.  Bennett. 
With  a Preface  by  Dame  Scholastica  M.  Ewart,  O.S.B.,  Lady  Abbess 
of  St.  Bride’s  Abbey,  Milford  Haven.  With  8 Illustrations.  Crown  8vo. 
Pp.  xii  + 203.  $1-35  net. 

“ There  is  a charm  and  intimacy  about  Miss  Bennett's  narrative  that  places  it 
quite  apar t from  the  general  story  of  a conversion.  Catholics  of  America  will 
be  interested  to  know  that  the  convert  Society  of  the  Atonement  at  Garrison-on-the 
Hudson , had  some  little  share  in  the  latter  event.  . . .The  illustrations  are  interesting 
and  portray  the  chief  periods  concerned  in  the  recent  Caldey  conversions .” — America. 

BODILY  HEALTH  AND  SPIRITUAL  VIGOUR.  By  W.  J.  Lockington 
S.J.  With  36  Figures.  Crown  8vo.  $0.90  net. 

An  attempt  is  here  made  by  the  author  to  combine  asceticism  with  a practical 
treatise  on  physical  culture.  Its  aim,  in  the  first  place,  is  to  bring  to  light  the  teach- 
ing, often  enough  forgotten  or  obscured,  of  the  great  Catholic  saints  and  mystics  on 
the  subject  of  the  care  and  development  of  the  body . 


Longmans,  Green,  & Co.’s  Publications 


PRIMITIVE  CATHOLICISM.  By  Monseigneur  Pierre  Batiffol,  Litt.D, 
Authorized  Translation  by  Henri  L.  Brianceau,  St.  Mary’s  Seminary, 
Baltimore,  from  the  Fifth  French  Edition  of  “L’Eglise  Naissante,”  Re- 
vised by  the  Author.  8vo.  $3. 50  net. 

THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  GOSPEL.  (“Orpheus”  et  l’Evangile).  By 
Mgr.  Pierre  Batiffol.  Translated  by  the  Rev.  G.  C.  H.  Pollen,  S.J. 
With  Appendix  of  Decisions  of  the  Pontifical  Biblical  Commission,  1911- 
1912.  Crown  8vo.  #1.50  net. 

“ We  sincerely  hope  that  everyone  whose  mind  has  been  disturbed  by  the  soph- 
istry of  modern  rationalistic  denial  will  read  this  carefully  able  defence  of  the  Chris- 
tian position .” — Catholic  World. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  ROMAN  BREVIARY.  By  Mgr.  Pierre  Batiffol, 
Litt.D.  Translated  by  Atwell  M.  Y.  Baylay,  M.A.,  from  the  Third 
French  Edition,  with  a New  Chapter  on  the  Decree  of  Pius  X.  8vo. 
$3.00  net. 

LIFE  OF  ST.  FRANCIS  OF  ASSISI.  By  Father  Cuthbert,  O.S.F.C. 
With  12  Topographical  Illustrations  and  a Portrait  of  the  Saint  after  a 
thirteenth-century  Painter.  8vo.  $2.00  net. 

"Fr.  Cuthbert  tells  the  story  with  a simple  truthfulness  that  cannot  fail  to  charm 
and  with  a consummate  art  that  should  satisfy  the  most  exacting  stylist.  The 
copious  references  reveal  painstaking , scholarly  research . In  every  respect  the 
book  is  a delight." — Catholic  Educational  Review. 

SAINT  FRANCIS  OF  ASSISI:  A Biography.  By  Johannes  Jorgensen. 
Translated  from  the  Danish  with  the  Author’s  Sanction  by  T.  O’Conor 
Sloane,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.  With  5 Illustrations.  8vo.  $3.00  net. 

4* Jorgensen.  . .deserves  particular  credit  for  his  sympathetic  history  of  the  Saint; 
Mr.  T.  O'Conor  Sloane , in  his  clear,  elegant  and  exact  English  version  of  the 
^Dane's  work,  has  merited  the  gratitude  of  the  literary  public  and  of  the  studious 
reader,  for  such  books  elevate  the  intellect,  give  moral  strength  to  the  will,  and  purify 
the  imagination,  and  these  should  be  the  objects  of  all  literature.  . . .There  is  no 
history  so  valuable  as  a documentary  history , and  in  fact  there  is  none  other  that 
is  reliable." — Mgr.  Henry  A.  Brann  in  the  N.  Y.  Times. 

MOTHER  MABEL  DIGBY,  1835-1911.  Superior  General  of  the  Society  of 
the  Sacred  Heart.  By  Anne  Pollen.  With  a Preface  by  Cardinal 
Bourne.  With  9 Illustrations.  8vo.  $3.50  net. 

This  is  the  history  of  a personality,  striking  to  an  unusual  degree  from  the  force 
of  her  character,  the  sanctity  of  her  life,  and  her  astonishing  power  of  organization 
and  control.  Her  career  was  remarkable  from  the  beginning.  The  biography 
should  attract  an  attention  not  confined  to  the  co-religionists  of  the  subject.  The 
book,  in  the  course  of  setting  forth  the  details  of  the  life  of  Mother  Digby,  throws 
light  on  the  recent  expulsion  of  the  Orders  from  France;  a tale  which , in  its  fulness, 
will  be  a revelation  to  many. 

TEN  PERSONAL  STUDIES.  By  Wilfrid  Ward.  With  10  Portraits. 
8vo.  Pp.  xx+300.  $3*oo  net.' 

Contents: — Arthur  James  Balfour,  a Political  Fabius  Maximus;  Three  Notable 
Editors  ( Delane , Hutton , Knowles);  Some  Characteristics  of  Henry  Sidgwick; 
Robert,  Earl  of  Lylton , Statesman  and  Poet;  Father  Ignatius  Ryder:  a Remi- 
niscence; Sir  M.  E.  Grant  Duff’s  Diaries;  Leo  XIII;  The  Genius  of  Cardinal 
Wiseman;  John  Henry  Newman:  an  Address;  Newman  and  Manning;  Appendix. 

MEN  AND  MATTERS.  By  Wilfrid  Ward.  8vo.  Pp.  xii+45i*  $3- 50  net. 

Contents: — Disraeli;  Lord  Cromer  on  Disraeli;  George  Wyndham;  Mr.  Chester- 
ton among  the  Prophets;  John  Stuart  Mill;  Cardinal  Vaughan;  Tennyson  at 
Freshwater;  Cardinal  Newman’s  Sensitiveness;  Union  among  Christians;  The 
Conservative  Genius  of  the  Church;  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Mediaeval  Thought ; 
Cardinal  Newman  on  Constructive  Religious  Thought;  Reduced  Christianity; 
Papers  read  before  the  Synthetic  Society. 

"Mr.  Ward’s  knowledge  of  church  history  and  dogma,  no  less  than  his  familiar 
acquaintance  with  the  men  and  movements  of  his  time,  make  these  essays  of  serious 
importance  to  thinkers,  for  he  writes  out  of  the  fulness  of  personal  knowledge 
Philadelphia  Public  Ledger. 


(&i)t  H£egtmm£ter  Xihrarg 

A Series  of  Manuals  for  Catholic  Priests  and  Students,  edited  by  the  Right 
Rev*  Mgr.  Bernard  Ward,  President  of  St.  Edmund’s  College;  and 
the  Rev.  Herbert  Thurston,  S.J. 

THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE:  Its  Origin,  Authority,  and  Interpre- 
tation. By  the  Very  Rev.  William  Barry,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Birmingham. 
Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xxx  + 278.  $1.20  net. 

“ The  most  satisfactory  manual  hitherto  Published.  It  will  easily  take  its  place 
in  the  library  of  every  Catholic  gentleman  and  critic." — Ecclesiastical  Review. 

THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  By  the  Right  Rev.  John  Cuthbert  Hebley, 
O.S.B.,  Bishop  of  Newport.  Crown  8 vo.  Pp.  xx  + 278.  $1.20  net. 

“ It  merits  the  highest  praise.  Our.  . .readers  will  do  well  to  add  * The  Holy 
Eucharist ’ to  their  collection  of  books  within  easy  reach." — Ave  Maria. 

THE  LEGENDS  OF^THE  SAINTS:  An  Introduction  to  Hagiography.  From 
the  French  of  P£re  H.  Delehaye,  S.J.,  Bollandist.  Translated  by  Mrs. 
Virginia  M.  Crawford.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xx+241.  $1.20  net. 

“ The  editors  of  the  Westminster  Library  may  be  congratulated  on  this  addition 
to  the  series." — Tablet. 

THE  PRIEST’S  STUDIES.  By  the  Very  Rev.  Thomas  Scannell,  D.D., 
Canon  of  Southwark  Cathedral,  Editor  of  The  Catholic  Dictionary . Crown 
8vo.  Pp.  xii  + 240.  $1.20  net. 

"The  book  will  prove  for  priests  a real  stimulant  and  a helpful  guide  to  steady , 
systematic , and  profitable  reading .” — Catholic  World. 

NON-CATHOLIC  DENOMINATIONS.  By  the  Very  Rev.  Mgr.  Robert 
Hugh  Benson.  Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xvi-f  218.  $1.20  net. 

"The  book  meets  a long-felt  want.  . . .His  treatment  throughout  is  sympathetic , 
and  the  priest  will  be  well  repaid  for  the  time  spent  in  perusing  the  book.  It  ought 
to  be  in  every  priest's  library .” — Homiletic  Monthly. 

THE  MASS:  A Study  of  the  Roman  Liturgy.  By  the  Rev.  Adrian  Fortescue 
Ph.D.,  D.D.  Crown  8vo.  $1.80  net. 

"The  author , a well-known  authority  on  things  liturgical  and  patristic , has 
condensed  the  result  of  his  labors  into  a well-written  book  which  should  appeal  to 
all  who  like  to  learn  whence  came  the  Roman  Missal." — America. 

THE  NEW  PSALTER  AND  ITS  USE.  By  the  Rev.  Edwin  Burton,  D.D., 
Vice-President  of  St.  Edmund’s  College,  Ware,  and  the  Rev.  Edward 
Myers,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Dogmatic  Theology  and  Patrology  at  St. 
Edmund’s  College.  Crown  8vo.  $ 1.20  net. 

This  book  is  meant  for  the  practical  use  of  two  distinct  groups  of  readers;  those 
who  wish  to  form  a clear  idea  of  the  connection  between  the  new  legislation  and  the 
old  Rubrics,  and  those  who  are  beginning  to  say  the  Divine  Office . 

THE  EARLY  CHURCH  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  MONUMENTS.  A 
Study  in  Christian  Archaeology.  By  the  Right  Rev.  Monsignor  Arthur 
Stapylton  Barnes,  M.A.,  Corresponding  Member  of  the  Society  Arche- 
ologique  de  France  and  of  the  Arcadia  of  Rome.  With  44  Illustrations. 
Crown  8vo.  Pp.  xx+223.  #1.50  net. 

"Mgr.  Barnes  has  written  a most  excellent  and  accurate  account  of  the  monu- 
ments of  the  early  Church.  . . .The  illustrations  are  numerous  and  well  chosen  . . . 
modest  in  statement,  and  clear  in  presentation.” — Catholic  World. 

THE  PRIEST  AND  SOCIAL  ACTION.  By  the  Rev.  Charles  Plater,  S.J., 
M.A.,  Professor  of  Psychology  at  St.  Mary’s  Hall,  Stonyhurst.  With  an 
Introduction  by  The  Bishop  of  Northampton.  Crown  8vo.  $1.20  net. 

"Few  priests , we  venture  to  say,  can  read  the  volume  without  experiencing  renewed 
zeal." — Ave  Maria. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  & CO.,  NEW  YORK 


By  the  Abbe  Fouard 

The  Beginnings  of  the  Church.  A Series  of  Histories  of  the  First  Century.  By 
the  Abb6  Constant  Fouard,  formerly  Professor  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology 
at  Rouen,  etc.,  etc. 

“ This  is  not  merely  biography;  it  is  veritable  history  as  well.  The  whole  period 
is  rehabilitated,  the  people  made  to  appear  before  us  as  they  actually  lived.  Geography , 
topography , ethnology  and  politics  are  here  combined  to  form  a picture  instinct  with 
living  reality.  We  do  not  think  that  we  are  saying  too  much  when  we  declare  that 
this  work  should  find  a place  in  every  Christian  library .” — Catholic  Standard. 

1.  THE  CHRIST,  THE  SON  OF  GOD:  A Life  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 

Jesus  Christ.  Translatedfrom  the  Fifth  Edition  with  the  Author’s  Sanction 
and  Co-operation.  With  an  Introduction  by  Cardinal  Manning.  Two 
vols.,  with  3 Maps.  Crown  8vo.  $2.50  net. 

2.  ST.  PETER  AND  THE  FIRST  YEAR  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  Trans- 
latedfrom the  Second  Edition  with  the  Author’s  Sanction  and  Co-operation* 
With  an  Introduction  by  Cardinal  Gibbons.  With  3 Maps.  Crown '8vo. 
$1.25  net. 

3 . ST.  PAUL  AND  HIS  MISSIONS.  Translated  with  the  Author's  Sanction 
and  Co-operation.  With  Maps.  Crown  8vo.  $1. 25  net. 

4.  THE  LAST  YEARS  OF  ST.  PAUL.  Translated  with  the  Author's 
Sanction  and  Co-operation.  With  Maps  and  Plans.  Crown  8vo.  1 1.25 
net. 

5 . ST.  JOHN  AND  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  Translated 
with  the  Sanction  and  Co-operation  of  the  Author’s  Executors.  With  a 
Portrait  of  the  Abb6  Fouard.  Crown  8vo.  $1.25  net. 

* * * The  six  volumes  making  this  set  can  be  supplied  in  uniform  binding , boxed. 
Price , $7.50,  net.  Expressage  additional . 


THE  CHRIST,  THE  SON  OF  GOD:  A Life  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 

Christ.  By  the  Abbe  Constant  Fouard.  With  an  Introduction  by  His 
Eminence  Cardinal  Manning.  Cheaper  Edition , without  the  Notes  and 
Appendices . 8vo.  Paper  Covers.  Pp.  xx+251.  $0.25. 


LIVES  OF  THE  ENGLISH  MARTYRS  DECLARED  BLESSED  BY  POPE 
LEO  XIII.  IN  1886  AND  1895.  Written  by  Fathers  of  the  Oratory,  of 
the  Secular  Clergy  and  of  the  Society  of  Jesus.  Completed  and  Edited 
by  Dom  Bede  Camm,  O.S.B.,  of  Erdington  Abbey.  2 vols.  Crown  8vo. 
Each,  $2.50  net. 

of  tfce  Pxien  &amt£ 


Editors  of  the  Franciscan  Lives:  The  Very  Rev.  Fr.  OSMUND,  O.F.M., 

Provincial,  and  C.  M.  ANTONY.  Editors  for  the  Dominican  Lives:  The 

Rev.  Fr.  BEDE  JARRETT,  O.P.,  and  C.  M.  ANTONY.  Fcp.  8vo.  Each 


Volume,  Illustrated,  §0.50  net. 

ST.  PIUS  V.  Pope  of  the  Holy 
Rosary.  By  C.  M.  Antony.  With 
a Preface  by  the  Very  Rev.  Monsignor 

R.  H.  Benson. 

ST.  VINCENT  FERRER,  O.P.  By 
Fr.  Stanislaus  M.  Hogan,  O.P., 

S. T.L. 

ST.  THOMAS  AQUINAS.  Of  the 
Order  of  Preachers  (1225-1274).  A 
Biographical  Study  of  the  Angelic 
Doctor.  By  Fr.  Placid  Conway,  O.P. 


ST.  BONAVENTURE.  The  Sera- 
phic Doctor.  Minister  General  of  the 
Franciscan  Order,  Cardinal  Bishop  of 
Albano.  By  Fr.  Laurence  Cos- 
telloe, O.F.M. 


ST.  JOHN  CAPISTRAN.  By  Fr. 
Vincent  FitzGerald,  O.F.M. 

ST.  ANTONY  OF  PADUA.  The 
Miracle-Worker  (1195-1231.)  By  C. 
M.  Antony. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  & CO.,  NEW  YORK 


